Shenali D Waduge

The 3^rd article in this series examines the most critical weakness in the Channel 4 narrative — the anonymous speaker — whose testimony is strategically used to connect Suresh Sallay, military intelligence, investigative obstruction, and the Easter Sunday attacks. The anonymous speaker is used to fortify the additional claim being made by Asad Maulana & to include an element official investigations, judicial findings, timelines, intelligence realities, and international counter-terror assessments have not included.

The Central Role of the Anonymous Speaker

Channel 4^’s witness is an unidentified individual whose identity is concealed, voice altered, and credentials undisclosed.

Unlike standard investigative journalism practice, the documentary provides:

• no identity verification,
• no institutional affiliation,
• no documentary proof of access,
• no chain-of-custody for alleged intelligence materials,
• no independent corroboration of his claims.

The viewer is asked to accept his statements without question.

Testing Inside Knowledge” What Is Not Shown

The anonymous speaker is framed as someone with inside knowledge” of intelligence operations.

However, the documentary does not provide:

• his authority – it is implied not shown.
• authenticated intelligence reports that incriminates Suresh Sallay
• alleged operational orders by Suresh Sallay
• whether he had direct access to intelligence files,
• whether he participated in investigations and how those were thwarted by Suresh Sallay.

Instead, his testimony consists of:

• retrospective interpretation,
• broad claims of knowledge” and involvement,”
• and general assertions of obstruction.
• the public are not told Suresh Sallay held no military or intelligence position from 2016 to Nov 2019 to be accused of any of the allegations he makes.

The Anonymous Speaker’s Actual Role in the Channel 4 Narrative

The anonymous speaker is strategically used to:

• to connect Suresh Sallay and military intelligence to the Easter Sunday attacks from inside the state security apparatus, thereby strengthening the external claim by Asad Maulana.

Without this anonymous speaker, the documentary is left largely based on Hanzeer Asad Maulana’s unsupported claim regarding an alleged February 2018 meeting – which if did not take place collapses his entire narrative.

The anonymous speaker is therefore introduced to reinforce four key narrative objectives:

1. that intelligence officers had prior knowledge of extremist activity
2. that military intelligence protected NTJ,
3. that intelligence deliberately obstructed investigations,
4. that Suresh Sallay had operational knowledge of Zaharan and the attacks.

All these are lined up to set the stage for the maha molakaru” theory.

This becomes evident from the specific statements made in the documentary.

Channel 4 introducing the anonymous speaker states

this program secured a rare interview with another high-ranking former government official who knows how he operates from the inside. He was only willing to discuss Suresh Sallay anonymously”

This means he would have to be in the security apparatus.

The anonymous speaker claims:

The targets were certain. The attackers were certain.”

Certain to whom?

He further claims:

If military and state intelligence had not misled in this way CID would definitely have found that the NTJ was involved in this.”

(in January 2019 itself the discovery of the explosives & weapons & connections to Zaharan was established & CID was conducting the investigations. They did not require military or state intelligence)

However, this statement is negated by himself a little later.

a high explosive called urea nitrate was found. Over 100 kg was found.”

(Jan 2019 – 2 suspects were arrested)

when they were questioned. We found out that the safe house or the training base was run by their leader Zaharan. And that they were members of the NTJ group”

you can see the information was certain. The date was certain the location was  certain. The attackers were certain”

first the FBI gave us an IP address. The person using that IP address has direct connections to Zaharan and they said to look into it. It was a Muslim soldier attached to military intelligence”

(given that the anonymous speaker is familiar with intelligence operations, he would know that intelligence agencies routinely use informants, aliases, surveillance, and infiltration methods to monitor extremist networks. Mere contact or communication links do not automatically establish complicity in terrorism. More importantly, the documentary never explains why the individual’s religion was relevant to the allegation. If wrongdoing was involved, the focus should be on evidence and operational conduct — not religious identity)

As you can see military or state intelligence misleading becomes irrelevant because the anonymous speaker himself says we found out” safe house / training base was run by their leader Zaharan” and they were members of NTJ group.

So clearly, this anonymous speaker has to be someone linked to that raid.

While his last statement about the date, location & attackers being certain returns questioning to even himself & those who held positions and questions why they did not prevent the attackers targeting the locations.

In January 2019 itself it was clear the arresting authorities knew

1. NTJ & leader Zaharan was involved
2. Estate was used as a safe house & training base
3. Over 100kg of urea nitrate, explosives, weapons and military hardware was found.

In this scenario where does Suresh Sallay fit in?

But the anonymous speaker later says:

 He played a huge role. He facilitated it. He knew about the suicide bombers especially Zaharan and his involvement.”

These are extraordinarily serious allegations.

What is this huge role” Sallay played.

What did Sallay facilitate”

If Sallay was overseas from 2016 – how did he know about the suicide bombers?

These are questions the public should now ask.

Will the anonymous speaker come forward to provide answers in a Court?

Yet Channel 4 does not establish:

• who this speaker is,
• what exact position he held,
• whether he held office during the Easter attacks,
• whether he was directly connected to investigations pre & post-attacks
• whether he had lawful access to intelligence records,
• or whether any independent authority verified his claims.

The viewer is simply expected to accept his statements

The documentary therefore creates an unusual situation:

• the most serious allegations are made by the least verifiable witness,
• the strongest accusations come from the weakest source,
• and the central narrative depends on testimony shielded from public scrutiny.

The anonymous speaker is not discussing minor procedural irregularities, but allegations involving:

• state complicity,
• mass murder,
• terrorism,
• and intelligence facilitation.

Such allegations demand evidence not conjecture.

Intelligence Failure vs Intelligence Conspiracy

A major weakness in Channel 4’s narrative is the merging of:

• intelligence failure,
• ignored warnings,
• bureaucratic dysfunction,
• poor coordination,

with deliberate orchestration of terrorism.

The anonymous speaker is used to bridge this gap without independently verifiable evidence.

However, official investigations — including the Presidential Commission and Supreme Court findings — identified:

• systemic failures,
• ignored warnings,
• coordination breakdowns,
• and institutional negligence.

They did not establish:

• operational control of NTJ by intelligence services,
• or deliberate orchestration of the attacks.

The Rajapaksas Were Not in Power During the Warning Period

The documentary itself admits:

• the Rajapaksas lost power in 2015,
• the Yahapalana Government was in office during the warning period,
• and Indian intelligence warnings were sent before the attacks.

Thus, warnings regarding Zaharan were received while:

• President Maithripala Sirisena was in office,
• Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister,
• and key institutions were controlled by Yahapalana appointees.

Yet Channel 4 attempts to imply individuals outside formal state power orchestrated events while the sitting administration failed to act on repeated warnings.

Prior intelligence awareness also does not prove orchestration. Intelligence agencies worldwide monitor extremists, suspects, informants, and radical networks.

Further, Channel 4 never establishes whether the anonymous speaker:

• held office during the Easter attacks,
• had operational access,
• participated in investigations,
• or possessed first-hand knowledge.

The Missing Corroboration

No:

• independent witnesses confirm the anonymous speaker’s claims,
• authenticated intelligence files are produced,
• parallel investigations support his allegations,
• or judicial findings validate his version.

Instead, the narrative relies heavily on a single anonymous and unverified source.

Serious allegations of conspiracy require independently verifiable evidence — not anonymous testimony alone.

Any newly discovered” notes or retrospective documents emerging years later must undergo:

• forensic authentication,
• chain-of-custody verification,
• and judicial scrutiny.

Zaharan Was Already a Known Extremist

Before April 2019:

• NTJ activities had attracted security attention,
• violent incidents had occurred,
• explosives linked to NTJ had been discovered,
• two policemen had been killed,
• and Zaharan had been a wanted fugitive since 2017.

The documentary itself references:

• extremist activity,
• police investigations,
• safe houses,
• and explosives linked to NTJ.

This undermines attempts to portray NTJ as a covert creation emerging through intelligence manipulation.

The more direct explanation remains:

• intelligence failure,
• ignored warnings,
• coordination breakdown,
• bureaucratic dysfunction,
• and institutional negligence.

Official Findings vs Channel 4 Narrative

The PCoI and Supreme Court identified:

• negligence,
• ignored warnings,
• and institutional failures.

They did not conclude:

• state orchestration,
• or intelligence-led facilitation of terrorism.

International assessments continue to classify the attacks as:

• ISIS-inspired terrorism carried out by NTJ under Zaharan.

No publicly available FBI, DOJ, or international prosecutorial finding has concluded that Sri Lankan intelligence orchestrated the attacks.

Why the Anonymous Speaker Matters

The anonymous speaker is central to Channel 4’s conspiracy narrative.

Without him:

• the alleged intelligence–NTJ link weakens,
• the obstruction narrative collapses,
• and the orchestration claim loses continuity.

Yet:

• he is the least verifiable source,
• and the least transparent witness presented.

The documentary relies heavily on:

• emotional sequencing,
• survivor testimony,
• political imagery,
• and narrative implication.

But storytelling is not evidence.

Will the Anonymous Speaker Testify?

Hanzeer Asad Maulana has thus far avoided appearing before Sri Lankan courts under cross-examination.

This raises the obvious question:

Will the anonymous speaker:

• identify himself,
• submit evidence,
• face cross-examination,
• and testify under oath?

Or will the allegations remain protected behind anonymity and media narration?

A Narrative Built on an Unverifiable Core

The Channel 4 documentary raises serious allegations.

However, its conspiracy narrative depends heavily on:

• concealed identities,
• unverified testimony,
• and absence of corroborating evidence.

Until independently verified through transparent and judicially tested evidence, these claims remain allegations — not established fact.

Shenali D Waduge

Shenali D Waduge

This is the second follow-up article examining the contradictions surrounding the September 2023 Channel 4 documentary Sri Lanka’s Easter Bombings: Dispatches.”

The first article questioned whether the alleged February 2018 meeting between Zahran Hashim and Maj. Gen. Suresh Sallay could even have taken place, given Sallay’s overseas diplomatic posting during the relevant period. This article examines an even more damaging contradiction — whether Suresh Sallay and Zahran allegedly already knew each other before 2018. This contradiction strikes at the heart of the entire Channel 4 narrative.

According to Asad Maulana in the Channel 4 documentary:

• Pillayan instructed him to arrange a meeting between Zahran Hashim and Suresh Sallay (Pillayan was in prison from 2015-2020)

The meeting allegedly took place in February 2018 at a house in a coconut estate in Puttalam.

Asad claims he coordinated the venue, communicated with the parties, attended the location, and introduced Sallay to Zahran and the NTJ group.

However, statements associated with Fr. Cyril Gamini during a 2021 Zoom presentation appear to imply that Sallay and Zahran already knew each other before 2018 and that NTJ allegedly had prior intelligence links & this is subject of an ongoing defamation case.

Both claims cannot stand together without contradiction.

• If Sallay and Zahran already knew each other before 2018, why would Asad Maulana need to introduce” them in February 2018?
• If Asad Maulana genuinely introduced them for the first time in February 2018, then claims of earlier operational links should be challenged.

This contradiction is not minor.

It is central to the credibility of the entire Channel 4 narrative.

The issue becomes even more serious because the alleged February 2018 meeting is now being treated as a foundational event used to justify suspicion, detention, and public allegations under PTA-related investigations.

Yet critical evidentiary questions remain unanswered.

THE CHANNEL 4 WORDING PROBLEM

The documentary presenter states:

This is Hanzeer Asad Maulana. He claims he saw a senior Sri Lankan intelligence agent meet with the suicide bombers prior to the Easter Sunday attacks.”

But Asad Maulana’s own narrative goes far beyond merely seeing” a meeting.

According to his own account:

• he organized the meeting
• coordinated communication
• secured access to Zahran
• arranged the venue
• attended the location
• introduced the participants

This distinction is legally important.

A witness claiming to have merely observed a meeting is fundamentally different from a person claiming direct operational involvement in arranging and facilitating it.

So which is it?

Was Asad merely an observer — or was he functioning as an intermediary between intelligence-linked actors and NTJ?

If he was an intermediary, then serious questions arise:

• How did he establish contact with Zahran while Zahran was allegedly in hiding from 2017?
• What prior relationship existed between Asad Maulana and NTJ?
• Why was he entrusted with arranging such a sensitive meeting?
• Was he already functioning as a communication link between the parties before February 2018?

THE INTERMEDIARY PROBLEM

The more central Asad Maulana becomes to the Channel 4 narrative, the more operationally implausible the story becomes.

According to Asad Maulana’s own account:

• he allegedly communicated with both sides
• coordinated the meeting
• arranged access to Zahran and the NTJ group
• attended the location
• introduced the participants

Yet the narrative then takes an even more bizarre turn.

According to Asad’s version, the purpose of the alleged meeting was extraordinarily sensitive – allegedly involving discussions about using NTJ to create an unsafe environment” to influence the 2019 Presidential Election.

However, despite allegedly being the very person who:

• arranged the meeting,
• coordinated the participants,
• secured access to Zahran,
• facilitated the introduction,
• and allegedly acted as the intermediary between the parties,

Asad was tkept outside for almost three hours while the alleged discussion took place inside a house that is being challenged for not existing in February 2018.

This raises serious logical and operational questions.

If Asad was trusted enough to:

• establish contact with an extremist group,
• organize the meeting,
• transport or coordinate participants,
• and allegedly facilitate contact between intelligence-linked actors and NTJ,
• why would he suddenly be excluded from the actual discussion itself?

The contradiction becomes even more striking because Asad later claims to know the alleged political intentions, operational objectives, and strategic purpose of the meeting.

How?

According to the narrative, after the meeting concluded, Suresh Sallay – allegedly a senior intelligence official engaged in a covert and highly sensitive operation – supposedly emerged and explained to Asad what had allegedly been discussed and planned inside.

This creates an extraordinary operational improbability.

If this was genuinely a covert intelligence-linked operation involving extremist actors:

• why would sensitive operational intentions allegedly be casually disclosed to a civilian intermediary afterward?
• why would an intelligence officer allegedly brief a non-operational outsider about a covert political-terror strategy?
• why exclude Asad from the meeting itself, only to allegedly reveal the contents to him afterward?
• if he was trusted enough to know the operational objectives afterward, why keep him outside in the first place?

The narrative becomes internally inconsistent.

Either:

Asad was an insignificant outsider who merely arranged logistics and therefore could not reliably know what was discussed inside,

OR

he was deeply involved operationally, in which case far more questions arise regarding his relationship with NTJ, his access to Zahran, and his alleged role as intermediary between the parties and why he was kept outside for the duration of the meeting.

Both positions create major credibility problems for the Channel 4 narrative.

The more closely the sequence is examined, the more the story appears structurally inconsistent rather than operationally credible.

THE FR. CYRIL CONTRADICTION

The October 2021 Zoom presentation linked to Fr. Cyril Gamini appears to go even further.

The presentation reportedly refers to:

• credible evidence” existing prior to 2015
• alleged intelligence links with NTJ
• alleged funding and payroll relationships
• alleged operational use of Zahran and NTJ

If such allegations were publicly made in 2021:

• what was the source of this alleged credible evidence”?
• was it independently verified?
• was it submitted to investigators?
• did any official investigation confirm these claims?
• where are the reports?
• was the information based on evidence, intelligence briefings, testimony, or hearsay?

These questions become critical because Channel 4’s 2023 narrative simultaneously claims Asad Maulana introduced Sallay to Zahran in February 2018.

One version implies a pre-existing relationship.

The other claims the relationship began through Asad’s introduction.

Both versions cannot operate simultaneously.

THE CORE CONTRADICTION

The contradiction is simple:

Did Suresh Sallay know Zahran before 2018?

OR

Did Asad Maulana introduce them for the first time in February 2018?

If prior knowledge existed:

the alleged introduction meeting” collapses.

If the introduction story is true:

prior intelligence-link allegations collapses.

Either way, evidence is required — not repetition of unverified allegations over social media.

THE EVIDENTIARY GAP

Despite the seriousness of the accusations, critical corroborative evidence remains publicly absent.

Where is:

• proof Sallay was physically in Sri Lanka in Feb2018?
• immigration and travel records?
• phone records?
• CCTV evidence?
• toll data?
• mobile tower records?
• vehicle logs?
• proof the alleged house even existed and operated as described in February 2018?

Without independently verifiable evidence, the alleged February 2018 meeting remains an assertion — not an established fact.

DIRECT OBSERVATION OR RETROSPECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION?

Another major problem concerns evidentiary consistency.

Asad Maulana claims:

• NTJ members arrived together
• Zahran was introduced as Amir”
• the meeting lasted several hours
• he himself waited outside during much of the discussion

Yet despite allegedly waiting outside, he later attributes detailed political motives, strategic objectives, and operational intentions to the meeting.

This raises critical questions:

• what did he directly witness?
• what was allegedly told to him later?
• what is interpretation?
• what is retrospective reconstruction after the Easter attacks?

Direct evidence, hearsay, interpretation, and retrospective narrative construction are not evidence.

THE PILLAYAN PROBLEM

The Channel 4 documentary claims Pillayan allegedly proposed using NTJ to create instability that would politically benefit Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

But major factual problems arise.

• Pillayan was arrested in October 2015 and remained in remand custody until 2020.
• He was granted bail in November 2020 and acquitted in January 2021.
• He was arrested again in April 2025 under separate allegations and detained under PTA orders.
• Yet no Easter Sunday-related charges were filed against him although political rhetoric to public said otherwise.

This creates a major contradiction.

• If investigators genuinely possessed evidence linking Pillayan to operational planning of the Easter attacks:
• why were such allegations absent from charges?
• why were no Easter-related indictments produced despite years of custody and investigation?

Even according to Asad Maulana’s own version, it was allegedly Pillayan — not Sallay — who suggested using” NTJ.

So how does this suddenly transform Suresh Sallay into the alleged mastermind”?

Additional questions arise:

• Did Sallay ever visit Pillayan in prison between 2015–2018?
• How could Sallay coordinate such activities while overseas from 2016–2019?
• Where is the documentary evidence connecting the two?

THE DANGER OF PUBLIC NARRATIVE REPLACING EVIDENCE

Another serious concern is whether repeated allegations gradually became publicly treated as established truth before foundational contradictions were resolved.

In complex national security cases:

• allegations cannot be based on assumptions
• assumptions cannot become narratives
• narratives cannot be accepted as fact”

This is dangerous.

For example:

• an alleged meeting becomes treated as a proven operational conspiracy
• an alleged introduction becomes proof of terrorism coordination
• alleged acquaintance becomes proof of intelligence control
• political speculation becomes treated as evidence

Each step requires separate evidentiary proof.

THE CENTRAL QUESTION REMAINS UNRESOLVED

At the center of this issue lies a contradiction that neither Channel 4, Asad Maulana, Fr. Cyril Gamini, nor investigators have properly resolved.

Did Suresh Sallay and Zahran Hashim already know each other before February 2018?

OR

Did Asad Maulana introduce them for the first time in February 2018?

Both propositions cannot simultaneously operate without contradiction.

• If prior knowledge existed, the introduction” narrative becomes questionable.
• If no prior relationship existed, then earlier intelligence-link allegations require proof.

It is deeply unjust to vilify a decorated intelligence officer who has served the nation by relying on distortions, contradictions, assumptions, and unverified interpretations — particularly while he remains under presidential detention and unable to publicly defend himself freely.

The media is not a court of law. Media narratives cannot replace due process, evidentiary standards, judicial scrutiny, or independently verified facts. Allegations repeatedly circulated through documentaries, presentations, and public commentary do not automatically become truth simply through repetition.

This is precisely why these contradictions, inconsistencies, and evidentiary gaps must be examined carefully and logically rather than accepted through emotionally driven or politically shaped narratives. The public deserves facts, evidence, consistency, and independent verification — not conclusions reached in advance.

It is for this reason that we invite the public to critically and logically analyze the competing claims, contradictions, and unanswered questions instead of being led toward pre-determined conclusions before the evidence itself has been independently established.

Shenali D Waduge

Prof. Hudson McLean

President of USA Donald Trump & Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Nethanayahu jointly created an Opportunity of a Lifetime to Sri Lanka on the 28th of February 2026.

Did Sri Lanka see this opportunity to invite the fleeing money market to Colombo?

The unwanted attack on Iran, for reason other than to maintain their personal Positions of Power, brought instant retaliation from Iran to countries associated by supporting USA & Israel.

In retaliation, Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, US military bases in the region, neighbouring Arab countries including Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Iraq’s Kurdistan.

UAE & Qatar which operates the World’s largest flight hubs had to stop operations for inoperability of Drone attacks.

Dubai the Golden City lost more.

Iran war wipes $120bn off Dubai, Abu Dhabi stock markets.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/world-indices/articles/iran-war-wipes-120bn-off-075742622.html

The United Arab Emirates’ stock markets in Dubai and Abu Dhabi have lost around $120bn in value since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, placing them among the hardest-hit financial markets worldwide.

Dubai and Abu Dhabi’s benchmark indexes have plunged about 16 percent and 9 percent, respectively, since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

Since the start of the war, the Dubai Financial Market (DFM) General Index has lost about $45bn in market capitalisation, while the larger ADX General Index has shed about $75bn.

Financial markets in Qatar and Bahrain have dropped about 4 percent and 7 percent, respectively, while exchanges in Saudi Arabia and Oman have racked up gains.

Of course when someone reads LankaWeb, it is more like a historical sob-story on the spilt-milk or ancient history which is readily available on Google!

When do some of these writers think about tomorrow on how Sri Lanka could thrive as a great island to live?

Writers please Get-Out-of-the-Box. Remove your sunglasses. 

Time to give preference to Creating the Island in the Sun-Sea-Opportunity into Reality!

Express Your Opinion – Read What Others Say!
The Independent Interactive Voice of Sri Lanka on the Internet.

Please visit -: http://www.lankaweb.com/

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

While Sri Lanka continues debating the shortage of construction labour, countries such as Turkey are already preparing for the next generation of construction materials.

For decades, the world relied on brick, concrete, steel, and timber as the primary building materials. Today, however, advanced economies are increasingly introducing composite structural elements made from fiberglass-reinforced polymers (FRP), glass-reinforced plastics (GRP), carbon fibre composites, and hybrid materials that combine strength, durability, and lightweight characteristics.

Turkey has quietly emerged as one of the world’s leading manufacturers of composite construction products.

Companies throughout Turkey now manufacture structural I-beams, box sections, channels, reinforcement bars, bridge components, handrails, platforms, wall panels, and industrial structural members using composite materials produced through advanced pultrusion technologies. These products are lighter than steel, highly resistant to corrosion, and require minimal maintenance. (PultechFRP)

The significance of this development cannot be overstated.

A conventional steel beam may require special transport equipment, heavy lifting cranes, protective coatings, and periodic maintenance. A composite beam can often be transported and installed with significantly less effort while providing excellent resistance to moisture, chemicals, and harsh environmental conditions. (PultechFRP)

Turkey’s composite manufacturers now export structural profiles, reinforcement systems, construction panels, and industrial components throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North America. The country has built a complete ecosystem consisting of research institutions, production facilities, testing laboratories, and export-oriented manufacturers. (Tezkom Kompozit)

The lesson for Sri Lanka is clear.

We continue to build largely as we did fifty years ago. Construction remains heavily dependent on bricks, cement blocks, timber shuttering, sand mining, and large numbers of manual workers.

At the same time, skilled labour is becoming scarce. Thousands of masons, carpenters, welders, and technicians have migrated overseas. Contractors struggle to find workers. Project costs continue to rise.

The answer is not simply to import foreign labour.

The answer is to redesign the industry itself.

Sri Lanka should adopt a national strategy promoting steel construction, prefabricated systems, and eventually composite structural technologies. Universities, engineering faculties, vocational institutes, and private industry should collaborate to develop local expertise in composite manufacturing and fabrication.

Composite reinforcement bars already offer advantages over conventional steel reinforcement in corrosive environments such as marine structures, bridges, ports, and coastal developments. Turkish manufacturers have successfully commercialized these technologies and demonstrated their practical application in infrastructure projects. (Pultra)

For an island nation surrounded by seawater, corrosion-resistant construction materials offer immense economic benefits. Ports, fisheries harbours, jetties, marinas, coastal highways, and offshore structures could all benefit from composite technologies.

More importantly, Sri Lanka has a unique opportunity to combine several industries into a single national development strategy.

A future ship-recycling industry could recover steel from end-of-life vessels.

Recovered steel could feed fabrication yards producing modular buildings and infrastructure components.

Composite manufacturing plants could produce lightweight structural elements, reinforcement systems, and prefabricated construction products.

Vocational training institutions could develop a new generation of welders, fabricators, composite technicians, and industrial workers.

Such a strategy would reduce reliance on imported construction materials, create high-value industrial employment, and increase national productivity.

Turkey’s experience demonstrates that economic development is not merely about constructing buildings. It is about creating industries that manufacture the materials used to build those structures.

Sri Lanka’s future should not be limited to importing cement, bricks, and labour.

It should aspire to manufacture steel structures, composite beams, modular housing systems, bridge components, and advanced construction materials for both domestic use and export markets.

The real challenge facing Sri Lanka is not only shortage of workers.

It is a shortage of imagination.

Countries that prosper are those that move from consuming technology to producing it. Turkey has shown how this transformation can occur. Sri Lanka must now decide whether it wishes to follow the same path.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Turkey concentrated ship recycling activities in Aliağa during the 1970s and developed nearby steel mills that could immediately consume recycled steel from ships. Today, the area handles ships, offshore platforms, FPSOs, naval vessels, and large commercial ships under regulated environmental standards.  

A key advantage is that recovered steel does not travel far. It is quickly processed by nearby steel plants, creating a circular economy.  

The Floating Dock Connection

Turkey has also invested heavily in very large floating docks for ship repair and conversion:

• Sefine Shipyard commissioned a floating dock 360 m long with a lifting capacity of 75,000 tonnes.  
• Beşiktaş Shipyard operates one of Europe’s largest floating docks, capable of handling FSRUs, FPSOs, rigs, and large commercial vessels.  
• Hat-San Shipyard recently launched new floating dock facilities to service large vessels.  

These docks were primarily built for repair, maintenance, and conversion. However, the same engineering capability could be adapted to support dismantling and recycling operations.  

A Model Sri Lanka Could Study

For Sri Lanka, the opportunity may be even bigger.

Instead of beaching ships, Sri Lanka could investigate a floating recycling dock stationed at a deep-water location such as:

• Trincomalee Harbour
• Hambantota Port

A large vessel nearing the end of its life could be brought into the floating dock. Hazardous materials could be removed safely, sections cut systematically, and steel transferred directly to barges or shore facilities. This would avoid many environmental problems associated with traditional beaching methods. Turkey’s move toward more environmentally controlled recycling provides useful lessons.  

Why This Could Be Revolutionary for Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka imports large quantities of steel every year while thousands of ships worldwide reach the end of their economic lives.

A national strategy could combine:

1. Ship recycling.
2. Steel recovery and re-rolling.
3. Steel fabrication.
4. Modular housing production.
5. Steel bridge fabrication.
6. Prefabricated industrial buildings.
7. Vocational training for welders, fabricators, and marine engineers.

Turkey’s example shows that the real value is not merely scrapping ships. The value comes from creating an entire downstream steel industry around ship recycling.  

For the Chamber of Construction Industry discussion, a provocative proposition would be:

Sri Lanka should not view end-of-life ships as scrap. They should be viewed as floating steel mines. A strategically located floating recycling dock in Trincomalee or Hambantota could become the foundation of a domestic steel industry supporting construction, shipbuilding, infrastructure, and manufacturing while creating thousands of skilled jobs.”

That concept aligns directly with the broader argument that Sri Lanka needs to move from labour-intensive brick-and-cement construction toward a steel-based industrial economy.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Lessons to learn 

Singapore faced severe labour shortages and rising labour costs. Instead of importing unlimited workers, the government pushed the industry towards prefabrication, modular construction, and steel-based systems through its Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) strategy. The Building and Construction Authority reports that prefabricated construction methods can improve productivity by up to 40%, reduce project duration by up to 30%, and significantly reduce onsite manpower requirements.  

Singapore now mandates advanced prefabricated systems for many government land sale projects specifically to reduce dependence on foreign labour.  

South Korea: Construction as Manufacturing

South Korea’s major contractors such as GS Engineering & Construction increasingly use modular and steel-based construction. According to the World Economic Forum, modular construction can shorten project timelines by up to 50% and potentially reduce total project costs by around 20% through productivity improvements and reduced labour requirements.  

The key lesson is that construction is increasingly treated like automobile manufacturing: components are produced in factories and assembled on-site.

China: Industrialized Construction

China has become the world’s largest producer of structural steel and prefabricated building systems. Entire apartment blocks, factories, warehouses, and bridges are increasingly fabricated off-site and assembled rapidly on location. The advantages include:

• Reduced labour demand
• Faster project completion
• Better quality control
• Reduced material wastage
• Improved safety
• Greater environmental compliance

Steel structures can often be erected 30–50% faster than conventional reinforced concrete construction.  

Why Sri Lanka Should Follow This Path

Sri Lanka’s traditional construction model depends heavily on:

• Bricklayers
• Carpenters
• Bar benders
• Concrete workers
• General labourers

These workers are increasingly unavailable because many have migrated overseas.

Instead of endlessly searching for more labour, Sri Lanka should reduce labour dependence.

A national strategy should include:

1. Expansion of steel fabrication yards.
2. Promotion of pre-engineered steel buildings.
3. Use of prefabricated wall panels.
4. Modular housing construction.
5. Development of a ship recycling and steel recovery industry.
6. Vocational training focused on welding, fabrication, CNC machining, and steel erection.
7. Tax incentives for steel-based industrial and commercial buildings.

Environmental Benefits

Traditional construction consumes vast quantities of sand, metal aggregates, and cement. Sand mining has already damaged many Sri Lankan rivers and coastal ecosystems.

Steel is one of the most recyclable materials in the world and can be reused repeatedly with minimal loss of quality. Factory production also generates less waste and reduces environmental damage caused by uncontrolled extraction of natural resources.  

Sri Lanka should stop viewing steel merely as a construction material and start viewing it as a strategic national industry. Just as Singapore transformed construction through industrialized building systems and South Korea integrated manufacturing with construction, Sri Lanka must shift from labour-intensive brick-and-cement methods to steel-based, prefabricated, and modular construction. The future belongs not to nations with the cheapest labour, but to nations with the highest productivity.”

This would make a powerful policy recommendation for the Chamber of Construction Industry discussion.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

https://fortune.com/2026/06/01/iran-conflict-disrupted-oil-supply-gulf-states-multi-billion-dollar-investments-renewables

Every conflict in the Middle East sends shockwaves through global energy markets. The latest tensions involving Iran have once again reminded the world how vulnerable modern economies remain to disruptions in oil supply.

For decades, oil has been both a blessing and a curse. It has fueled economic growth, industrial development, and transportation. Yet it has also been at the center of geopolitical rivalries, military interventions, and economic instability.

Ironically, every oil crisis strengthens the argument for moving away from oil.

Today, the wealthy Gulf states, whose prosperity was built on petroleum exports, are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are building vast solar farms, green hydrogen projects, and smart cities powered by renewable energy. They understand a reality that many others are reluctant to acknowledge: the future belongs to countries that can generate energy without depending on finite fossil fuels.

Some analysts argue that if the United States genuinely wishes to reduce the geopolitical influence of oil-producing nations, the most effective strategy is not military intervention but technological innovation. Every solar panel installed, every wind turbine erected, and every hydrogen plant commissioned reduces dependence on imported oil.

The paradox is that the United States itself remains one of the world’s largest producers and consumers of fossil fuels. Its economy continues to benefit from oil and gas production even as it champions the transition to cleaner energy. This reflects the difficult balancing act facing all industrialized nations: maintaining economic growth while reducing carbon emissions.

Perhaps the greatest opportunity lies in hydrogen.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy but a carrier of energy. When produced using renewable electricity, it becomes “green hydrogen”—a fuel capable of powering industries, ships, trucks, trains, and even electricity grids with minimal carbon emissions.

Imagine a future where vast solar parks in desert regions produce electricity during the day. Excess power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is stored and transported to power stations, factories, and vehicles whenever needed.

Even more exciting is the potential of wave energy. Surrounded by the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka possesses an enormous and largely untapped marine energy resource. Ocean waves operate day and night, independent of sunshine. If wave-powered hydrogen production becomes commercially viable, island nations could transform themselves from energy importers into energy exporters.

Sri Lanka has already begun its own renewable energy journey. Solar power, wind farms, wave power and plans for green hydrogen production demonstrate that the country understands the importance of reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. Every barrel of oil not imported strengthens the nation’s balance of payments and improves energy security.

The lesson from every Middle Eastern conflict is the same. Oil prices rise, economies suffer, and governments scramble for alternatives. Yet each crisis also accelerates investment in technologies that may eventually make oil less important.

History may one day record that geopolitical tensions in oil-producing regions did not preserve the age of oil. Instead, they hastened its decline.

The world’s next energy superpowers may not be those with the largest oil reserves, but those with the brightest sunshine, strongest winds, and most innovative hydrogen technologies.

For Sri Lanka, blessed with abundant sunlight, wind corridors, and ocean energy, the question is not whether the transition will occur. The question is whether we will lead it or follow others who do.

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Hiru News

The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed imposing additional duties of 10% or 12.5% on imports from 60 economies, after determining that their failures to curb trade in goods made with forced labour are unreasonable and restrict US commerce. Sri Lanka is among the 45 countries assigned the higher 12.5% rate — a bracket that places the island’s critical apparel export sector at a structural cost disadvantage against some of its closest rivals in the American market.

The proposal comes from the Office of the US Trade Representative and represents the latest finding from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation. It is also part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to rebuild its emergency tariff regime, after the US Supreme Court struck down the administration’s earlier tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act in February. A temporary 10% tariff imposed on February 20 is set to expire on July 24, making the new Section 301 framework the administration’s primary trade enforcement tool going forward.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an uneven playing field.”

Where Sri Lanka stands

The USTR notice divides the 60 investigated economies into two tiers. The lower 10% rate applies to countries that have either imposed an outright prohibition on forced-labour imports or committed to reciprocal trade with the United States. That group includes Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Britain.

Sri Lanka is not among them. Having entered into neither a prohibition nor a reciprocal trade agreement, the country falls into the residual 12.5% category alongside 44 other economies, including India and Vietnam. The USTR notice is explicit: countries that have failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition face the higher rate by default.

How competitors won the lower rate

The USTR notice identifies three routes to the 10% tier: imposing an outright prohibition on forced-labour imports, signing a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, or holding a partial compliance regime — a status granted exclusively to the United Kingdom under the proposal.

Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Malaysia secured eligibility through the reciprocal-trade agreement route, giving each a meaningful cost advantage over Colombo in the US market. The European Union, Canada, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan qualified through the outright prohibition route. Each of these countries negotiated or legislated its way into the lower bracket. Sri Lanka did not, and the proposal as written does not offer any automatic path for countries in the 12.5% tier to migrate downward without either signing a reciprocal agreement or implementing a prohibition before the final rule is set.

The 2.5-percentage-point difference may sound modest in isolation, but the apparel trade is a volume business built on thin margins. Sourcing managers at major US retailers and brands routinely make or revisit supplier decisions on the basis of cost differentials far smaller than 2.5%. When a buyer is choosing between a Sri Lankan manufacturer and a Bangladeshi or Cambodian one offering comparable quality, lead times, and compliance credentials, a tariff gap of this size can tip the balance — not once, but systematically, across entire product categories and seasons.

Apparel exemptions do not apply

The notice’s Annex A carves out certain product categories from the tariff’s scope, running from page 18 of the document through an extensive list of commodity codes. The exemptions cover beef, offal, raw materials, Section 232 articles, informational materials, donations, and personal baggage. Country-specific carve-outs exist for USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico, and for apparel and textiles entering duty-free under the CAFTA-DR agreement — covering Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

None of these reaches Sri Lanka. Apparel, the country’s largest export category to the United States by a considerable margin, is squarely in scope at 12.5%. Sri Lankan garment exporters cannot look to Annex A for relief. The only route that matters for them is the textile mechanism — and that mechanism remains unfinished.

One lever remains: the textile mechanism

The notice describes a mechanism that could offer partial relief for apparel exporters: a volume-based formula that ties the quantity of garments a country may ship at the reduced rate to the volume of American textile inputs — specifically US-produced man-made fibre and cotton fibre — that country purchases from the United States. The more US cotton and yarn a trading partner buys, the more apparel it can export back into the American market at the lower Section 301 rate. It is, in structure, a reciprocity formula dressed in textile language.

Sri Lankan manufacturers do purchase US cotton, which means the formula could in principle generate meaningful relief for the country’s garment sector. If a Sri Lankan factory sources a significant share of its raw materials from American suppliers, the mechanism could allow a portion of its US-bound exports to benefit from the lower-tier rate, effectively reducing the average tariff burden on its shipments.

There is, however, a critical caveat — and it is a large one. The notice does not name which countries are eligible for the mechanism. Sri Lanka’s inclusion is nowhere stated or implied in the document. Furthermore, the USTR explicitly describes the mechanism as unfinished, inviting public comment on its core features: which products it covers, which countries qualify, what the relative market opportunities look like for each side, and what the applicable tariff rate — if any — should be. The rate, the product list, and the partner roster are all still open questions. For Sri Lankan exporters, this means the textile mechanism is the most consequential open question in the entire notice, and the answer will be shaped in large part by what is submitted during the comment period.

Two paths to relief before the window closes

Trade lawyers and industry bodies say Sri Lanka has two concrete avenues to pursue before the comment period ends, and both require moving quickly.

The first is to file a formal written submission arguing that Sri Lanka’s existing commitments or partial compliance measures justify classification at the 10% tier. The notice explicitly invites comment on whether a different rate should apply to an economy based on its commitments or partial regime. This is the direct procedural hook — the same one Bangladesh and Cambodia used, through their reciprocal trade agreements, to land at 10% rather than 12.5%. Sri Lanka would need to make the affirmative case that its current legislative or regulatory framework, or any commitments it is prepared to make, bring it within the spirit of what the USTR is seeking. It is not a guaranteed argument, but it is an open one, and the notice invites it.

The second avenue is to engage actively with the textile mechanism’s design process. This means submitting detailed comments on the mechanism’s structure — advocating for Sri Lanka to be named an eligible partner, for the covered products to include the specific garment and textile categories that Sri Lankan factories produce, and for the formula to be calibrated in a way that reflects the purchasing relationships already in place between Sri Lankan manufacturers and US cotton suppliers. The more detailed and commercially grounded these submissions are, the more likely they are to carry weight with USTR staff as they finalise the mechanism’s design.

Both avenues require action within the current comment window. No relief is built into the proposal as it stands, and waiting for a subsequent round of negotiations is not a strategy the timeline supports.

The deadlines

The procedural calendar leaves limited time for deliberation. Requests to appear at the public hearing, along with a summary of proposed testimony, must be submitted by June 22, 2026.

Written comments are due by July 6, 2026.

The public hearing itself takes place on July 7, 2026, at the US International Trade Commission building in Washington.

For Sri Lanka’s Export Development Board, the Joint Apparel Association Forum, and individual manufacturers with significant US exposure, the June 22 appearance request deadline is effectively the first moment of consequence. Missing it forecloses the option of presenting oral testimony at the hearing, limiting the country’s engagement to written submissions alone.

What comes next

At 12.5%, Sri Lanka is level with India and Vietnam but 2.5 points above its most direct apparel competitors. The proposal is not yet final — the comment process exists precisely to allow affected parties to shape the outcome — but the default, absent an effective intervention from Sri Lanka, is a rate that disadvantages the country’s most important export sector relative to its closest rivals.

The window is open. It will not be open for long. Whether Colombo’s trade bodies, its manufacturers, and its government move decisively in the next few weeks will determine whether Sri Lanka enters the new tariff regime on equal footing with its competitors or carries a structural cost disadvantage into what could be a defining period for the global apparel trade.

Dr. Ruwan M Jayatunge 

The onset of the Ukrainian war in 2014 created significant manpower challenges, prompting both Russia and Ukraine to recruit former soldiers from various nations. This situation has led to the involvement of numerous ex-combatants and military personnel from Sri Lanka, driven largely by the country’s severe economic conditions. Many veterans have unfortunately become targets for human trafficking networks and misleading social media campaigns that promote lucrative, non-combat positions. As a result, a considerable number of individuals have travelled to the conflict zone to enlist in either the Russian or Ukrainian armed forces.

Initially, the agents assured recruits that their roles would be limited to non-combat positions in the rear. However, upon deployment, the reality proved starkly different. Many veterans, lured by the promise of safer jobs such as driving or cooking, found themselves thrust into the chaos of the frontlines, serving as mercenaries and facing direct enemy fire.

The issue of unofficial military deployments involving former Sri Lankan combatants has escalated into a significant governmental concern. According to estimates from parliamentary inquiries and independent human rights organizations, approximately 2,000 experienced veterans have joined foreign military forces. The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry has officially recorded 554 individuals who have enlisted in the Russian military. Furthermore, reports suggest that at least 275 Sri Lankans have lost their lives while fighting for Russia, a number that likely underrepresents the actual casualties, particularly when contrasted with the 59 fatalities acknowledged by the Sri Lankan government.

While government figures previously acknowledged 59 fatalities, investigations by Ukraine’s Coordination Headquarters for POWs and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) have revealed that at least 275 Sri Lankans have lost their lives while fighting for Russia. Additionally, more than 120 individuals are reported missing or have lost all contact with their families, and Ukrainian forces have captured several former soldiers. They are currently being held as Prisoners of War.

The combatants of Sri Lanka engaged in a prolonged conflict known as the Eelam War, which left many of them with both physical injuries and deep psychological scars. Following their retirement from active duty, numerous veterans found themselves grappling with a loss of identity and diminished social standing, as the transition to civilian life proved challenging.

Understanding the motivations that lead former combatants to become mercenaries is crucial, as they extend beyond mere economic hardship. Many of these individuals are drawn back to conflict zones due to a psychological phenomenon known as trauma reenactment. This occurs when veterans, burdened by moral injury or survivor’s guilt, feel an unconscious urge to reconnect with their past traumas, often leading them to engage in conflicts that are not directly related to their own experiences. For these individuals, a peaceful environment can seem unpredictable and threatening, while chaotic or dangerous settings feel familiar and manageable. This sense of familiarity compels them to recreate chaos, thereby regaining a sense of control in the face of perceived dangers.

Reports have emerged indicating that some former combatants from Sri Lanka are now aligning with their former enemies, including members of the Jeyanthan Brigade of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This complex situation underscores the lasting effects of war on personal identities and the intricate relationships within post-conflict societies.

This account presents the personal experience of a Sri Lankan ex-combatant who participated in the conflict in Ukraine. The narrative offers insights into the challenges faced during the war, reflecting on the complexities of combat and the emotional toll it takes on individuals involved.

Sargent GK is a combat veteran who initially served in the Sri Lanka Sinha Regiment and later in the Sri Lanka Army’s special forces. He spent a number of years in Northern Sri Lanka fighting the LTTE, a separatist military organization. Throughout the course of the armed conflict, he witnessed a series of traumatic battle incidents that profoundly affected his emotional well-being.

After retiring from military service, he dedicated much of his time to his family; however, the financial difficulties he faced began to weigh heavily on him. Having been a fully engaged combat soldier, the transition to civilian life proved to be monotonous and unfulfilling. It was during this period of restlessness that he learned about job opportunities available for former soldiers in Russia, which sparked a glimmer of hope. Intrigued by the prospect of a new beginning and the chance to utilize his skills in a different environment, he decided to pursue this opportunity, eager to see if fortune would favour him in this new chapter of his life.

He contacted an agent and invested 750,000 Sri Lankan rupees, which is roughly equivalent to 2,278 US dollars, to secure a position abroad, enticed by the prospect of earning a monthly salary of 200,000 Russian rubles, approximately 2,748 US dollars. Sargent GK shared his experiences as he travelled to Moscow, where he was subsequently transferred to a base camp in Ukraine. There, he participated in a comprehensive 14-day training program alongside fellow recruits from various countries, including Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, and several African nations. Notably, many of these individuals were not engaged in combat roles; instead, they were primarily support staff, fulfilling essential functions such as cooking and driving.

Upon completing their basic training, the soldiers were informed that they would be deployed to the front lines of the war. For Sergeant GK, who had previously faced the rigors of combat, this news did not come as a shock; he resolved to embrace the challenge and prepare for the realities of battle. In contrast, many of his fellow recruits were overwhelmed by a sense of dread and disbelief at the prospect of serving in such a perilous environment. The weight of this revelation settled heavily on them, as they grappled with the fear of the unknown and the daunting responsibilities that lay ahead.

Sargent GK expressed concerns regarding the inadequacy of the 14-day training program, highlighting that it failed to adequately prepare the personnel for the challenges they would face. Many soldiers completed the training without a clear understanding of the enemy they were about to confront, nor were they familiar with the types of weaponry they would encounter in combat. This lack of preparation extended to their unfamiliarity with the terrain, which impacted their operational effectiveness. Additionally, the soldiers were not briefed on the climatic conditions they would experience, which further complicated their ability to adapt and respond to the environment during their missions.

Upon their arrival at the front lines, the soldiers encountered a formidable and elusive adversary, marked by the pervasive use of drone warfare, which led to substantial losses within their ranks. Sargent GK found himself deeply unsettled by the absence of organized evacuation efforts for both the deceased and the critically injured, a stark departure from his previous experiences during the Eelam War in Sri Lanka. In that conflict, he had been confident that if he sustained injuries, his comrades would promptly come to his aid and facilitate his evacuation. Furthermore, he held a firm belief that, should he fall in battle, his body would be recovered by his fellow soldiers. However, the situation in the Ukrainian war starkly contrasted this expectation, revealing a troubling lack of coordination and support for the wounded and fallen, leaving him to grapple with the harsh realities of modern warfare.

The absence of unit cohesion was noticeable, leading to a pervasive atmosphere where each soldier was left to fend for himself. The grim reality was that if one were to sustain serious injuries, the likelihood of receiving assistance from comrades was virtually nonexistent; they would not be carried to the field medical units. This precarious situation fostered a deep-seated anxiety among many soldiers, who found themselves grappling with feelings of cynicism and a profound sense of helplessness. The knowledge that their survival depended solely on their own resilience, rather than the support of their peers, created a psychological burden that weighed heavily on their morale and overall effectiveness in the field.

Sergeant GK noted that Russian senior officers rarely visited the front, and language barriers created confusion among the mercenaries. The team found themselves in a state of heightened alert, as there was no prior debriefing or comprehensive explanation of the mission at hand. Instead, they were compelled to respond swiftly to unexpected directives that arrived without warning. This lack of preparation created an atmosphere of uncertainty, where each member had to rely on their instincts and training to navigate the unfolding situation. The abrupt nature of the orders demanded immediate action, leaving little room for discussion or strategic planning.

Amidst the chaos of the battlefield, he witnessed the harrowing toll of war as his comrades fell victim to relentless drone strikes and the merciless barrage of artillery fire. The sight of injured soldiers and the lifeless bodies strewn across the ground became a grim reality that haunted him daily. Despite the profound loss, there was a disheartening lack of acknowledgement or reverence for the fallen; their remains lay neglected, slowly succumbing to decay. In the dense forests surrounding the conflict zone, he frequently stumbled upon human remains, a stark reminder of the violence that engulfed them. Each encounter was a deeply unsettling experience, leaving an indelible mark on his psyche as he grappled with the brutality of war and the indifference it often elicited.

The soldiers faced significant challenges due to the irregularity of their food rations, which compelled them to seek additional supplies from nearby shops. Their primary sustenance included staples such as rice, bread, chicken, canned goods, fish, and occasionally, vegetables. To manage their meals, they set up makeshift field kitchens, allowing them to prepare simple dishes, including soup, on occasion.

Amidst these difficulties, he found solace in receiving his guaranteed monthly salary of 200,000 rubles, which was conveniently deposited into his bank account. This financial support not only provided him with a sense of relief but also enabled him to send much-needed funds to his family residing in Sri Lanka, ensuring their well-being despite the distance.

In the Eelam War in Sri Lanka, Sergeant GK engaged with rebels, targeting their bankers. In contrast, during the conflict in Ukraine, he encountered a different kind of warfare, characterized by the presence of drones equipped with six bombs that struck unexpectedly. The sight of these drones prompted immediate reactions, as soldiers would scramble for cover, a response he was unaccustomed to. Additionally, he faced the relentless artillery fire from Ukrainian forces, which resulted in significant casualties. Amidst this unfamiliar battleground, he came to a stark realization: if he were to be killed or severely injured, there would be no one to recover his body, leaving it to decay in the frigid terrain.

The foreign mercenaries found themselves engulfed in a climate of uncertainty and confusion, largely due to the absence of effective leadership to direct their efforts or orchestrate significant offensives. This lack of guidance left them vulnerable, as they often lived in anticipation of the deadly drones that patrolled the skies, prompting them to adopt various evasive strategies. The weaponry at their disposal proved inadequate for countering the Ukrainian drones, rendering them largely defenceless. Whenever the ominous sound of the drones approached, or they caught sight of them overhead, the soldiers instinctively sought refuge, scrambling for any available shelter to protect themselves from the imminent threat.

Amidst the harsh realities of warfare and the bittersweet recollections of their homeland, Sergeant GK recounted how the foreign mercenaries sought solace through entertainment. In a bid to uplift their spirits, the soldiers gathered to sing traditional songs from their native cultures, their voices rising above the sounds of conflict. They also engaged in lively dances, captivating an audience composed of international onlookers who were drawn to the vibrant display of camaraderie and cultural expression. Ingeniously, they transformed everyday utensils into makeshift drums, creating rhythmic beats that resonated with a sense of unity and joy. These fleeting moments of celebration provided the soldiers with a much-needed respite, allowing them to experience brief intervals of happiness amidst the chaos of the battlefield.

After serving for ten months, Sergeant GK made the difficult decision to request a discharge from active duty, yearning to leave the front lines behind. The weight of personal issues at home compelled him to seek resolution, and he felt an urgent desire to return to his family. However, the bureaucratic process for obtaining the necessary clearance was lengthy and fraught with delays. Once he finally received the long-awaited approval, he made his way to Moscow, where he boarded a flight to Colombo, eager to escape the turmoil of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and find solace away from the battlefield.

After returning to Sri Lanka, he has taken up the life of a farmer, yet he finds himself grappling with significant financial difficulties. The weight of his past looms heavily over him as he struggles with haunting memories from the two wars he fought. These recollections not only affect his mental well-being but also serve as a constant reminder of the violence and chaos he endured. Despite the challenges he faces in his current life, he has no intention of revisiting the battlefields of Eastern Europe, firmly resolved to leave that chapter behind and seek a more peaceful existence.

Although Sergeant GK’s combat journey ended, many former combatants are drawn to the prospect of travelling to either Russia or Ukraine to engage in combat against an abstract adversary with whom they have no personal ties. These individuals are motivated by the potential financial rewards that accompany such perilous endeavours, fully aware of the risks involved in putting their lives on the line for a cause that remains distant and often unclear. This phenomenon raises questions about the allure of conflict and the complex motivations that drive individuals to seek out danger in foreign lands, often in pursuit of monetary gain rather than ideological conviction.

The involvement of Sri Lankan soldiers in the Ukrainian conflict as mercenaries raises significant questions about their motivations and the potential consequences they face. Many of these individuals may be driven by economic hardship, seeking financial stability in a war-torn region where their skills can command higher pay.

However, the ramifications of such decisions are profound and troubling. The likelihood of experiencing psychological trauma is high, as they may encounter the brutal realities of warfare, leading to a dual layer of trauma that could haunt them long after the conflict ends. Furthermore, the grim possibility of death looms large; should they perish in combat, their remains may never be returned to their families, leaving loved ones without closure. In cases where soldiers go missing in action, the absence of reliable authorities to investigate or provide answers exacerbates the anguish for their families, who are left in a state of uncertainty and despair. This complex interplay of motivations and outcomes underscores the precarious nature of mercenary work in such volatile environments.

Senaka Weeraratna

The International Cricket Council (ICC) had direct exposure to the Player Referral concept during the tour of India to Sri Lanka in July 2008. During this time, the then-ICC General Manager of Cricket, David Richardson, physically visited Colombo and was 

handed over a Dossier of Documents on Player – Referral in Colombo by SLC officials and in person by Nishantha Ranatunga (SLC Secretary) in Dubai in June 2009 

This new evidence supported by newspaper reports published in 2009 including interviews with Nishantha Ranatunga (then SLC Secretary) demolishes the line of defense adopted by the ICC i.e., David Becker (2010) and Jonathan Hall ( 2023) that they were ignorant of Player – Referral (DRS) with deep roots in Sri Lanka. 

The International Cricket Council (ICC)‘s long-standing denial of prior knowledge regarding Sri Lanka’s Player Referral concept (the blueprint for the Decision Review System, or DRS) has been heavily undermined by documented handovers of the concept dossier directly to ICC leadership. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Direct Evidentiary Trail

While the ICC’s internal legal teams historically argued that its committees conceived the system independently, overwhelming documentary evidence unearthed now proves that the ICC was physically handed the framework multiple times before its formal rollout: [1, 2]

• July 2008 (Colombo): A comprehensive dossier detailing the Player Referral system—originally conceived by Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna in 1997—was directly handed over to David Richardson (then ICC General Manager / later CEO) during an ICC visit to Colombo.
• June 2009 (Dubai): Nishantha Ranatunga, the CEO of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), officially presented the same concept documents to the ICC in Dubai, months before the ICC’s official worldwide rollout of the system in November 2009. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Saadi Thawfeek 

Sa’adi Thawfeeq is one of Sri Lanka’s most respected and authoritative cricket journalists. Over a career spanning several decades, his work has been widely published across major local and international platforms, including: [1]

• Daily FT (Financial Times Sri Lanka)
• Daily News
• ESPNcricinfo (as a long-standing Sri Lanka correspondent) [1]
• In his Column in the Sunday Nation (June 22, 2008) he published an extract of his Interview with Upali Dharmadasa ( former Sri Lanka Cricket Board Chairman).
• Notable Impact: One of the column’s most famous installments was an interview published on June 22, 2008. In it, the former Cricket Board President Upali Dharmadasa admitted to Thawfeeq that the Board had failed to officially table Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna’s groundbreaking 1997 proposal to the ICC. This specific column remains a key piece of evidence cited by historians confirming that the concept of cricket’s UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System) originally originated in Sri Lanka. [1]
• In another Column of the ‘Sunday Nation’ Newspaper published in 2009 a few weeks after the ICC Board Meeting held in Dubai in July 2009 under the caption ‘ UDRS – ICC must deal with subject of origin’ Thawfeek reports as follows:
• ” After much persuasion he (Weeraratna) managed to convince the local Board (SLC) to take up his case with the ICC. Sri Lanka Cricket Secretary Nishantha Ranatunga presented all relevant documents pertaining to the authorship to Richardson at the last ICC Chief Executive’s meeting in Dubai (July 2009) one and a half months ago in the presence of ICC CEO Haroon Lorgat. Richardson not only promised to study the submitted documents but was also supposed to get in touch with Weeraratna and SLC. So far nothing has transpired. Ranatunga, when contacted, stated that he would fire a reminder to Richardson wanting to know what progress has been made so far”. See the Attachment.
• The Context of the Incident in July 2008
• During the first Test match between Sri Lanka and India at the Sinhalese Sports Club (SSC) in Colombo, the International Cricket Council (ICC) was trialing a new concept called the “Player Referral System”. David Richardson, then serving as the ICC General Manager of Cricket, visited Sri Lanka to monitor these experimental trials. [1, 2, 3]
• Concurrently, Sri Lankan lawyer and advocate Senaka Weeraratna asserted that the core mechanics of this review system—specifically allowing a dissatisfied on-field player to directly appeal to the third umpire—was an innovation he originally conceived and published in 1997. [1, 2]
• The Canceled Meeting

According to local reports and documentation compiled by advocates of the claim:

• The Dossier Handover: Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) officials officially handed over a comprehensive dossier of documents to David Richardson. This file contained proof of Weeraratna’s prior work and publication regarding the Player Referral framework.
• The Scheduled Appointment: SLC successfully coordinated an official appointment for Senaka Weeraratna to meet face-to-face with Richardson the following day to formally discuss the authorship claim.
• The Departure: Instead of attending the arranged meeting, Richardson left the country that very night without meeting Weeraratna or providing an explanation to the author. [1, 2]

Subsequent Developments

The ICC ultimately maintained a formal stance via its legal team that the governing body developed the DRS independently and did not rely on Weeraratna’s conceptual framework. Despite continuous efforts by Weeraratna and subsequent sports administrators within Sri Lanka to gain international acknowledgment for the country, official credit was never adjusted by the ICC. [1, 2,

• The Core Controversy and the “Constructive Notice” Defense

The core dispute centers on the ICC’s refusal to grant moral or intellectual property recognition to Weeraratna. Legal analysts and Sri Lankan advocates argue that the ICC’s denial relies on deeply flawed legal advice: [1, 2, 3]

• The ICC Stance: The governing body claims it was unaware of Weeraratna’s 1997 newspaper publications (such as his letters in The Australian) and that publishing the idea openly waived his right to confidentiality.
• The Counter-Argument: Legal experts point out that the ICC completely overlooks the Doctrine of Constructive Notice. Because the concept was widely publicized in mainstream international media nine years before the ICC’s first UDRS draft in 2006, the council is legally presumed to have known about it.
• The Hardware vs. Concept Disparity: While technology firms make millions supplying physical tracking components (like Hawk-Eye), the actual rule dynamic—moving the power of appeal from the umpire to the player—came directly from the Sri Lankan legal mind. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Current Remedial Efforts

Due to the clear paper trail involving Richardson and Ranatunga, there is a growing institutional and diplomatic movement in Sri Lanka pushing for formal restitution. Advocates are lobbying Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) to elevate this from a private dispute to an international intellectual property matter, urging the ICC to convene an independent commission of inquiry or take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to formally rename the framework the Weeraratna Decision Review System (WDRS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Conclusion:  The ICC has been deliberately misleading the world on origins of Player – Referral (DRS) when water tight evidence points in the opposite direction. 

Cricket followers !

  “Caveat Emptor” (let the buyer beware)

Senaka Weeraratna

Sports

“Point Blank” was a prominent, hard-hitting sports journalism column written by the veteran Sri Lankan cricket writer and commentator Sa’adi Thawfeeq. [1]

Key Details of the Column

• Publication: The column was featured in the Sunday Nation, a popular weekly newspaper in Sri Lanka.
• Focus: It primarily focused on inside stories, critical administrative affairs, and controversies surrounding Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC).
• Notable Impact: One of the column’s most famous installments was an interview published on June 22, 2008. In it, the former Cricket Board President Upali Dharmadasa admitted to Thawfeeq that the board had failed to officially table Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna’s groundbreaking 1997 proposal to the ICC. This specific column remains a key piece of evidence cited by historians confirming that the concept of cricket’s UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System) originally originated in Sri Lanka. [1]

About Sa’adi Thawfeeq

Sa’adi Thawfeeq is one of Sri Lanka’s most respected and authoritative cricket journalists. Over a career spanning several decades, his work has been widely published across major local and international platforms, including: [1]

• Daily FT (Financial Times Sri Lanka)
• Daily News
• ESPNcricinfo (as a long-standing Sri Lanka correspondent) [1]

If you are looking for a specific article, interview, or date from his “Point Blank” catalog, please share more details so I can find the exact piece you need!

https://share.google/aimode/veW36ndeZ8RMssfe9

•  
• LankaWeb – Cricket Justice: DRS is a Sri Lankan Achievement

Mar 28, 2023 — Senaka Weeraratna in fact went on to submit his proposal to the Cricket Board President Mr. Upali Dharmadasa in June 1997 request…

Lankaweb News

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

To my utter chagrin, the scale, frequency, and brazenness of human rights violations around the world have not diminished, but rather have grown profoundly, raising the question of whether the very notion of civilization” is little more than a veneer. We pride ourselves on culture, law, and moral advancement, yet beneath this thin surface lies a persistent brutality. Increasingly, it seems we have not escaped that condition; we have merely disguised it.

In many countries, human rights violations have become the default response to conflict, replacing peaceful approaches and reconciliation. This failure is measured in the death, despair, and hopelessness of hundreds of millions.  There are scores of countries spanning the globe that have committed large scale, documented abuses against their own populations and/or native groups, and against civilians in neighboring countries caught in conflict zones between two warring countries, including: Myanmar, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Nigeria, among many others.

For this article, I selected seven countries to demonstrate how these abuses transcend regions, races, religions, cultures, and governments, ranging from democratic to despotic. As Thomas Hobbes warned, without restraint, human life becomes solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s governance is heavily grounded in their interpretation of Islamic Sharia laws. They have institutionalized gender apartheid; women and girls are systematically erased from public life, denied education, stripped of autonomy, and reduced to shadows of their potential as human beings. A generation of girls—who might have led, taught, healed, and transformed their society—has been deliberately extinguished. As Simone de Beauvoir argued, oppression is sustained when society denies individuals the ability to transcend imposed roles. In Afghanistan, the denial of women’s and girls’ rights is absolute. The loss is immeasurable, not only personal but national and even civilizational.

In Gaza, what has unfolded as a result of the Israel-Hamas war defies comprehension. Entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble by Israeli forces, children starving not metaphorically but literally—searching for scraps to survive another day. Many no longer cry; even grief requires energy they no longer possess. Tens of thousands have perished—by bombs, by bullets, and by deprivation. Displacement has stripped families of dignity, stability, and hope. Women and children bear the heaviest burden, trapped in a cycle of terror with no refuge. This is not merely a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral collapse of a presumably democratic Israeli Netanyahu-led government, witnessed in real time, normalized through repetition.

In Ukraine, Russia’s conduct reveals another dimension of human rights violation: the calculated erasure of identity. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted by Russian forces, separated from their families, and subjected to indoctrination. They are forced to abandon their language, their culture, their very sense of self. Parents are left in a state of perpetual anguish, not knowing if they will ever see their children again. Hannah Arendt wrote of the banality of evil”—how systematic cruelty becomes normalized through bureaucracy and blind obedience to authoritarianism. What we see here is precisely that: an organized heinous effort to extinguish a people’s future by reshaping its children.

Sudan stands as one of the most devastating humanitarian catastrophes of our time. Years of violent conflict between two generals vying for power have left millions facing acute food insecurity. Children are starving in staggering numbers, while armed groups recruit them as soldiers, robbing them of both innocence and future. Women and children alike are held captive for months and brutally raped as a weapon of war, enduring unimaginable hardship. This is systemic devastation. Frantz Fanon poignantly argues that prolonged violence deforms both victim and perpetrator, creating tragically domestic self-perpetuating cycles.

In Yemen, a protracted war between competing authorities has created a living nightmare. The Houthis are largely supported by Iran, both in terms of weaponry and funding, and the internationally recognized government of Yemen has been backed by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates–a government that has presided over a collapse of basic services and widespread suffering. Children and women endure the brunt of this crisis—malnutrition, disease, and displacement defining their daily existence. The fact that the international community keeps arming both sides reveals a global indifference to human suffering that is as troubling as the conflict itself.

China’s treatment of the Uyghur minority reflects a chilling form of modern repression against religious and ethnic minorities. Surveillance, detention, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure have become tools of state policy. Individuals are targeted not for actions, but for identity—for who they are. Michel Foucault warned of how power can permeate every aspect of life, shaping behavior, thought, and existence itself, which has materialized in China with alarming precision.

In the United States, a democratic country that proclaims its commitment to liberty and justice, troubling patterns emerge. The treatment of undocumented immigrants—detention in overcrowded facilities, limited access to legal recourse, family separations—reflects a system that prioritizes enforcement over humanity. When due legal process is compromised, and individuals are treated as less than human, it signals a dangerous erosion of democratic principles. As Alexis de Tocqueville warned, liberty cannot be established without morality.”

Trapped in Cycles of Dehumanization

How, then, do we explain this pervasive failure? Why, despite centuries of philosophical reflection, legal development, and moral discourse, do we remain trapped in cycles of dehumanization?

Part of the answer lies in human nature itself. Thinkers from Hobbes to Freud have argued that aggression and self-interest are deeply embedded within us. Civilization, in Freud’s view, is a fragile construct—one that suppresses but never eliminates our destructive impulses. When institutions weaken, when accountability fades, those impulses resurface with alarming ease.

Immanuel Kant, however, insisted that human beings possess the capacity for moral reasoning—that we are capable of recognizing the inherent dignity of others. The persistence of atrocities, then, reflects not an absence of moral capacity, but a failure to exercise it. Political interests, fear, tribalism, and indifference often override ethical responsibility.

Sadly, the international community’s inaction further compounds the problem. Geopolitical calculations frequently undermine mechanisms designed to prevent and respond to human rights violations. States prioritize power over principle, stability over justice. The result is a system that reacts too late, too feebly, or not at all.

What, then, is the remedy?

None of the following suggested remedies are easy to implement due to internal political disputes, divergent geostrategic interests among states, and global rivalries. They require courage, resources, and sustained commitment. They demand that individuals and domestic and international institutions alike confront uncomfortable truths and make difficult choices.

First, accountability must become non-negotiable. International law must be enforced consistently, not selectively. Second, civil society and independent media must be strengthened and not succumb to the authorities’ dictates, as they serve as essential checks on power. Third, education in schools and universities must emphasize not only knowledge, but moral responsibility—cultivating empathy alongside critical thinking. Finally, global cooperation within and outside the UN, including the EU, the Arab League, and the African Union, among others, must move beyond rhetoric to action, particularly in addressing root causes such as socio-economic inequality, authoritarianism, and climate change.

We stand at a defining crossroads in human history. The suffering we witness is neither accidental nor inevitable—it is the direct consequence of choices made, and choices deferred. If humanity continues to avert its gaze, to rationalize, to delay, then this moral collapse will not only persist—it will deepen. Nevertheless, if there remains even a fragment of conscience, of courage, of collective will, then the course can still be altered.

The question is no longer whether we understand the crisis of the pervasive human rights violations. The question is whether we are prepared to act before what remains of our humanity slips beyond recovery.

is President of the Institute for Humanitarian Conflict Resolution.alon@alonben-meir.com

ආචාර්ය සරත් ඔබේසේකර

ඉන්ධන මිල ගණන් අඛණ්ඩව ඉහළ යාම හේතුවෙන් පවුල්වලටත් ව්‍යාපාරවලටත් විශාල ආර්ථික බරක් එල්ල වී තිබේ. මේ තත්ත්වය හමුවේ ලොව බොහෝ රටවල් ජනතාවගේ ගමනාගමන අවශ්‍යතා පවත්වාගෙන යමින් ඉන්ධන පරිභෝජනය අවම කිරීම සඳහා නවෝත්පාදන ක්‍රියාමාර්ග අනුගමනය කරමින් සිටී. සංවර්ධිත රටවල සාර්ථකව ක්‍රියාත්මක වන මෙවැනි ක්‍රමවේදයන්ගෙන් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවටද ප්‍රයෝජනවත් පාඩම් රැසක් උකහා ගත හැකිය.

ඇමරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදය, කැනඩාව, ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව සහ යුරෝපයේ රටවල් කිහිපයක් විසින් හඳුන්වා දී ඇති සාර්ථක වැඩසටහනක් වන්නේ High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes හෙවත් බහු මගී වාහන මංතීරු ක්‍රමයයි. මගීන් දෙදෙනෙකු හෝ වැඩි පිරිසක් රැගෙන යන වාහන සඳහා පමණක් වෙන්කර ඇති මෙම මංතීරු හරහා ගමන් කාලය අඩු වන බැවින් ජනතාව එකම වාහනයකින් ගමන් කිරීම සඳහා උනන්දු කරවයි. එමගින් මාර්ග තදබදය, ඉන්ධන පරිභෝජනය සහ කාබන් විමෝචනය සැලකිය යුතු ලෙස අඩු වේ.

නගරීය ප්‍රවාහනයේ තවත් වැදගත් ප්‍රවණතාවක් වන්නේ Ride Sharing හෙවත් හවුල් ගමන් ක්‍රමයයි. එකම දිශාවට ගමන් කරන පුද්ගලයන්ට ඩිජිටල් තාක්ෂණය හරහා එකම වාහනයක් භාවිතා කර ගමන් වියදම් බෙදා ගැනීමට අවස්ථාව ලැබේ. බොහෝ ආයතන තම සේවකයන් අතරද මෙම ක්‍රමය දිරිගන්වයි. එමගින් ඉන්ධන ඉතිරි වීමත් මාර්ගවල වාහන සංඛ්‍යාව අඩු වීමත් සිදු වේ.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ බහුලව භාවිතා වන ත්‍රිරෝද රථ ද මෙම වැඩපිළිවෙළේ කොටසක් විය හැකිය. වර්තමානයේ එක් මගියෙකු සඳහා එක් ගමනක් සිදු කරන ත්‍රිරෝද රථ සේවාව වෙනුවට, සමාන මාර්ගවල ගමන් කරන මගීන් දෙදෙනෙකු හෝ තිදෙනෙකු අතර ගාස්තුව බෙදා ගැනීමේ ක්‍රමයක් හඳුන්වා දිය හැකිය. ආසියාවේ නගර කිහිපයක මෙවැනි ක්‍රම සාර්ථකව අත්හදා බලා ඇති අතර මගීන්ගේ ගමන් වියදම් අඩු කිරීමට එය උපකාරී වී ඇත.

නිවසේ සිට වැඩ කිරීම (Work From Home) සහ නම්‍යශීලී සේවා ක්‍රමද සැලකිය යුතු බලපෑමක් ඇති කළ හැකිය. COVID-19 වසංගත සමයේදී බොහෝ කාර්යාලීය කටයුතු දුරස්ථව සිදු කළ හැකි බව ඔප්පු විය. එබැවින් සතියේ දින එකක් හෝ දෙකක් නිවසේ සිට වැඩ කිරීම සඳහා සේවකයන්ට අවස්ථාව ලබා දීමෙන් දෛනික ගමන් ප්‍රමාණය සැලකිය යුතු ලෙස අඩු කළ හැකිය.

අධ්‍යාපන ක්ෂේත්‍රයද මේ සඳහා දායක විය හැකිය. පන්තිකාමර අධ්‍යාපනය අත්‍යවශ්‍ය වුවද, තෝරාගත් විෂයයන් හෝ ක්‍රියාකාරකම් සඳහා මාර්ගගත ඉගෙනුම් ක්‍රම භාවිතා කිරීමෙන් සිසුන්, ගුරුවරුන් සහ දෙමාපියන්ගේ දෛනික ගමන් සංඛ්‍යාව අඩු කළ හැකිය.

එමෙන්ම පොදු ප්‍රවාහන පද්ධති නවීකරණය කිරීමද අත්‍යවශ්‍යය. බස් හා දුම්රිය කාලසටහන් ඒකාබද්ධ කිරීම, ඩිජිටල් ප්‍රවේශපත්‍ර ක්‍රම හඳුන්වා දීම, නවීන බස් රථ සේවා සහ Park-and-Ride පහසුකම් සැපයීම 

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Sri Lanka is once again showing signs of economic recovery. Major infrastructure projects are being discussed, highways are being planned, urban development is accelerating, and private sector investment is slowly returning. Yet beneath this optimism lies a serious challenge that threatens to derail the country’s construction ambitions: the severe shortage of both skilled and unskilled labour.

The Chamber of Construction Industry’s decision to initiate a discussion on this subject is timely and necessary. The reality is that Sri Lanka’s construction sector is not adequately prepared to meet the manpower demands of a rapidly expanding economy.

For years, policymakers have focused on project financing, foreign investment, and construction technology. However, very little attention has been paid to the human resources required to execute these projects. Contractors across the country are struggling to recruit masons, welders, carpenters, steel fixers, machine operators, fabricators, and even general labourers.

The problem is not new.

More than twenty years ago, Colombo Dockyard began importing welders and fabricators from India because of the shortage of local skilled workers. Today the situation has become even more acute. Many Sri Lankan craftsmen have migrated to the Middle East, Maldives, Australia, and other destinations where wages are significantly higher.

As a result, the country now faces a difficult choice. Either projects are delayed due to labour shortages, or Sri Lanka begins importing foreign workers on a large scale. While importing labour may provide a temporary solution, it also means a substantial outflow of foreign exchange and creates social and economic challenges of its own.

The deeper issue lies within our education system and societal attitudes.

For decades, parents and policymakers have encouraged young people to pursue university education, often treating vocational training as a second-class option. The result is an oversupply of degree holders and a severe shortage of technicians, craftsmen, and skilled tradesmen.

A nation cannot build highways, ports, factories, ships, power plants, and housing schemes with academic qualifications alone. Physical development requires skilled hands as much as it requires educated minds.

Sri Lanka urgently needs a national vocational training revolution.

Technical colleges, apprenticeship schemes, and industry-linked training centres must be expanded and modernised. Young people should see careers in welding, fabrication, machinery operation, steel construction, and industrial maintenance as respected and financially rewarding professions.

At the same time, the construction industry itself must undergo a technological transformation.

The traditional dependence on labour-intensive building methods is no longer sustainable. Sri Lanka should aggressively promote steel construction, prefabricated building systems, modular housing, precast concrete components, and factory-produced wall panels. These technologies reduce construction time, improve quality, minimise waste, and significantly reduce manpower requirements.

Even highway bridges and certain infrastructure structures can increasingly utilise steel fabrication and modular construction techniques that require fewer workers on-site while improving project delivery times.

Another issue that deserves urgent attention is the environmental impact of construction material extraction.

The growing demand for sand, metal, clay, and other construction materials is placing enormous pressure on the environment. Illegal and poorly regulated mining operations continue to damage rivers, coastal areas, forests, and agricultural lands. Economic growth cannot come at the expense of environmental destruction.

Project planning must therefore integrate sustainable sourcing of construction materials and strict enforcement of environmental regulations. The country must avoid repeating mistakes that have caused irreversible environmental damage elsewhere in the region.

Looking further ahead, Sri Lanka should seriously consider developing a modern steel recycling and ship-scrapping industry. Thousands of tonnes of recyclable steel pass through the region annually. Properly managed ship recycling facilities could generate raw materials, create skilled employment, reduce import dependency, and support a domestic steel fabrication industry.

The Government is rightly promoting the digital economy. Digital transformation is essential for future competitiveness. However, digital growth alone cannot build ports, factories, industrial parks, power plants, bridges, and housing projects.

Sri Lanka must pursue both digital and physical development simultaneously.

The nation stands at a crossroads. Economic recovery is creating opportunities, but without a workforce strategy and technological transformation, many of these opportunities may be lost.

What is required now is not incremental reform but revolutionary thinking.

The country must rethink education, vocational training, industrial policy, construction technology, environmental management, and workforce planning as part of a single national strategy.

If Sri Lanka succeeds, it can create a modern, productive, and globally competitive construction industry. If it fails, labour shortages, project delays, rising costs, and environmental degradation will continue to undermine national development.

The challenge is clear. The question is whether we have the courage to confront it.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

One of the most important strategic decisions Sri Lanka can make is to gradually shift from labour-intensive conventional construction towards a steel-based construction industry.

Traditional building methods depend heavily on large numbers of masons, carpenters, bar benders, and other tradesmen. With the growing shortage of skilled labour, these methods are becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to sustain.

Steel construction offers a practical solution. Steel structures can be fabricated in factories under controlled conditions and transported to project sites for rapid assembly. This approach reduces construction time, improves quality, minimizes material wastage, and significantly lowers the demand for on-site labour.

Many developed nations and rapidly industrializing countries have embraced steel-framed buildings, modular housing, prefabricated warehouses, industrial plants, bridges, and even highway structures. The result has been faster project completion, improved safety standards, and greater productivity.

Sri Lanka possesses several advantages that can support this transition. Existing fabrication expertise within shipbuilding, marine engineering, and heavy engineering sectors can be expanded to serve the construction industry. Investments in fabrication yards, steel processing facilities, and modern vocational training centres would create a new generation of skilled workers while reducing dependence on imported labour.

The country should also examine the possibility of establishing a modern ship recycling and steel recovery industry. Large quantities of recyclable steel are available from decommissioned vessels operating in the region. Properly managed facilities could provide raw material for local fabrication industries while creating employment and reducing import dependence.

A national policy encouraging steel construction for factories, warehouses, commercial buildings, bridges, public housing, and selected highway infrastructure could transform the sector within a decade.

The future construction industry of Sri Lanka cannot be built solely on concrete, bricks, and labour-intensive methods. It must increasingly be built on steel, technology, prefabrication, and innovation.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

AI Overview

Yes, Royal College has an exceptionally sound claim to celebrate the legacy of the Decision Review System (DRS). The fundamental architecture of the DRS—specifically the groundbreaking concept of the “Player Referral”—was conceived and architected in 1997 by prominent Sri Lankan lawyer and old Royalist Senaka Weeraratna (Class of 1960). [1, 2, 3, 4]

Before his invention, technology was strictly used at the discretion of umpires. Weeraratna’s paradigm shift allowed the players to directly challenge an on-field human error, completely altering the rules, tactics, and transparency of global cricket. Cricket historians widely credit his global publications in the late 1990s as the definitive blueprint for the modern DRS. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

To honor this monumental global achievement, Royal College, alongside the Royal College Union (RCU) and its vast global community of Old and Young Boys, can celebrate through several impactful initiatives. [1, 2]

---

1. Big Match Celebrations (The Royal-Thomian)

The historic Battle of the Blues is the perfect stage to honor this legacy: [1, 2]

• The “T” Sign Tradition: Encourage the entire Royal spectator stands (both the “Mustangs tent” and the boys’ tents) to simultaneously flash the iconic DRS “T” sign when the team walks out, or at a specific over mark (e.g., the 60th over to represent his 1960 batch).
• Match-Day Memorabilia: Design and distribute official merchandise featuring the Blue and Gold colors fused with a minimalist DRS “T” symbol, subtitled “Conceived by a Royalist.” [1, 2]

2. Institutional Immortality at Reid Avenue

Preserving the legacy inside the school gates ensures future generations stay inspired: [1]

• Royal College Archives: Dedicated a permanent alcove in the Royal College Archives showcasing Weeraratna’s original 1997 letters to The Australian and The Times of London that birthed the concept.
• Annual Memorial Award: Introduce a new category at the annual Colours Night or Prize Giving—such as the Senaka Weeraratna Award for Innovation and Sports Strategy—to recognize students who display exceptional analytical skills.
• Navarangahala Panel: Host an inaugural panel discussion inside the Navarangahala featuring cricket legends, international umpires, and legal experts to discuss “The Legal and Technological Evolution of Modern Sports Tracking.” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Global Advocacy by Old Boys (RCOBAs)

The global diaspora of Royal College Old Boys Associations (RCOBAs) can champion formal recognition: [1]

• Lobbying the ICC: Form an official RCU sub-committee to formally petition the International Cricket Council (ICC) to officially title the concept the Weeraratna Decision Review System (WDRS), mirroring the institutional acknowledgment given to Duckworth-Lewis.
• Global Dinner Chapters: RCOBA branches in Australia, the UK, and the UAE can host charity dinners inviting high-profile cricket commentators (such as Harsha Bhogle or Kumar Sangakkara) to shine a spotlight on Sri Lanka’s greatest intellectual contribution to world sports. [1, 2, 3]

4. Grassroots Activation for Young Boys [1]

Engaging current students bridges history with future ambition: [1]

• Inter-House Innovation Competitions: Task the Royal College Science and Cricket Societies to co-host an annual tech-hackathon called the DRS Challenge, encouraging boys to design technology solutions for local sports officiating.
• Junior Cricket Drills: Implement tactical DRS simulation games during Academy cricket training, teaching young cricketers the precise data, analytics, and psychology behind optimizing reviews. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

Next Logical Step: The most effective immediate step is for the Royal College Union (RCU) to pass a resolution to form the “DRS Legacy Committee.” This committee can begin compiling documentation to launch the official archival exhibit ahead of the upcoming cricket season. [1, 2]

https://share.google/aimode/HfdbYdqXfM339NGnw

Source:  AI Overview

……………………..

Yes, Royal College has a strong claim to celebrate this legacy. The “Player Referral” concept, which revolutionized cricket as the Decision Review System (DRS), was conceptualized in 1997 by Senaka Weeraratna, a distinguished Old Royalist. [1, 2, 3, 5]

Why the Claim is Sound

• The Pioneer: Senaka Weeraratna (a lawyer by profession) published a letter in The Australian in March 1997 proposing a “Player Referral” system.
• Legal Analogy: He utilized his legal training to argue that, like a dissatisfied litigant, a player should have an appellate right to challenge a trial decision made by an on-field umpire.
• Global Adoption: This four-pillar framework formed the structural foundation of the UDRS (now DRS), which the ICC formally adopted and implemented in 2008. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

How Royalists Should Celebrate the Legacy

To honor this profound intellectual contribution to global sports by an Old Royalist, the Royal College community and its alumni networks can engage in the following celebratory and advocacy initiatives:

1. Institutional Recognition

• The Senaka Weeraratna Trophy: Establish an annual junior-level or intra-school cricket tournament where the DRS format is taught and utilized, specifically named in his honor.
• College Archives & Museum: Feature his original 1997 publications and the global timeline of DRS in the Royal College Archives, documenting his achievement alongside other historic Royalist milestones. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. Alumni Advocacy & Awareness

• Lobbying and Campaigns: Old Royalists in the legal fraternity and sports administration can rally together to support Mr. Weeraratna in securing official global recognition from the International Cricket Council (ICC).
• The Royal College Union (RCU): The RCU can host specialized panel discussions, bringing in legal and cricketing experts to highlight Weeraratna’s legal framework, emphasizing how a Royalist’s out-of-the-box thinking fundamentally altered sports adjudication worldwide. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. Mentoring Young Boys

• School Seminars: The Old Royalist networks (such as his class groups) can fund and organize innovation and critical-thinking seminars for young students. They can use the “Player Referral” journey to teach boys that analytical thinking and challenging the status quo can change the world.
• Sports Ethics and Law: Incorporate the history of DRS into the sports curriculum at Reid Avenue to educate young cricketers on the history of sportsmanship, fairness, and how technology is applied to uphold justice in the game. [1, 2]

Source: AI Overview

Royal College, Colombo, holds an undeniable legacy of nurturing game-changing thinkers, innovators, and administrators who have fundamentally restructured global and domestic cricket. From pioneering revolutionary rule changes to guiding the sport through massive structural growth, the institution’s alumni have left an indelible mark well beyond the boundaries of Reid Avenue. [1, 2]

The Architect of Modern Fairness: Senaka Weeraratna

The most profound structural innovation in contemporary cricket came from a distinguished Royalist, Senaka Weeraratna. [1]

• The Brain Behind DRS: Weeraratna is the original conceptual architect of the Player Referral System, which later evolved into the internationally utilized Decision Review System (DRS).
• Revolutionizing the Game: He first conceptualized and advocated for this system in 1997 to eliminate glaring human errors by on-field umpires.
• Global Impact: His pioneering framework shifted player agency and technological integration forever, transforming the way cricket matches are adjudicated worldwide. [1]

The Global Custodian: Ranjan Madugalle

As a former captain of Royal College during its historic 1979 Centenary Battle of the Blues, Ranjan Madugalle transitioned from a stylish national batsman to cricket’s ultimate diplomat. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• An Unmatched Legacy: Serving as the Chief of the ICC Panel of Match Referees, Madugalle became the longest-serving and most respected match referee in cricket history.
• Defining Professionalism: He was instrumental in enforcing player codes of conduct and upholding the “Spirit of Cricket” during the sport’s massive commercial transition, standardizing match governance for generations of players. [, 2]

Founding Fathers of Ceylonese Cricket Governance

Long before Sri Lanka achieved Test status in 1981, Royalists were constructing the administrative pillars of the sport: [1, 2]

• Dr. John Rockwood: An old boy of Royal College, Dr. Rockwood was the foundational benefactor and driving force behind the creation of the Ceylon Cricket Association (CCA) in 1922, serving as its first president.
• Dr. C. H. Gunasekara: A brilliant all-rounder who played English county cricket for Middlesex, Dr. Gunasekara collaborated with Rockwood to formalize structural cricket administration on the island.
• Building the Future: Their early strategic initiatives set a proper trajectory that eventually led Sri Lanka to absolute global triumph in the 1996 Cricket World Cup. [1, 2, 3]

Dynamic Field Generals

Royal College has consistently produced tactical icons who excelled in high-pressure leadership roles. Legends like Gamini Goonesena—who went on to captain Cambridge University and represent the Commonwealth XI—and hard-hitting former Ceylon captain C. I. Gunasekera brought rare flair, strategic aggression, and intellectual depth to captaincy, proving that school-level rivalries like the Royal-Thomian encounter serve as the ultimate proving ground. [1, 2, 3, 4]

If you are researching a specific era, let me know if you would like to explore pre-independence cricketing pioneers from Royal College or focus on modern-day international alumni like Kusal Janith Perera. [1, 2]

https://share.google/aimode/aRq544E4NqW5QlQMd

Source: AI Overview

Source: AI Overview

Indian superstar Vaibhav Suryavanshi (age 15) was felicitated by both the Indian President and Prime Minister Narendra Modi while in contrast the Sri Lankan Cricket Thinkers who democratized and transformed world cricket from an authoritarian system i.e., umpire’s word is final, to one of fair play, transparent and a reduced tension game through the mechanisms of Third Umpire ( Mahinda Wijesinhe) and Player -Referral (DRS) (Senaka Weeraratna) remain sidelined by the envious and shameless Political and Cricket establishments of Sri Lanka. Jealousy, the scourge of Sri Lanka, has no limits. 

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets 14-year-old Vaibhav Suryavanshi at Patna Airport following his impressive performances in cricket

Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, on being conferred the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar by the Honourable President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmuji.

The striking contrast between India’s immediate celebration of young talent and the long-running battle for institutional recognition faced by Sri Lankan cricket innovators highlights a complex dynamic in how the sport honors its contributors. While teenage prodigies like Vaibhav Suryavanshi dominate modern headlines with explosive records, the conceptual architects who fundamentally restructured cricket’s adjudication system continue to fight for official validation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The contrasting realities of these figures reveal a significant disparity in how cricket governance and national establishments distribute acclaim.

The Rise of Vaibhav Suryavanshi

At just 15 years old, Indian batsman Vaibhav Suryavanshi has captured the global spotlight through historic, record-shattering performances in the TATA IPL 2026 season. [1]

• The Record Breakthrough: He became the fastest player in IPL history to reach 1000 runs, achieving the feat in just 440 balls and breaking Andre Russell’s previous record of 545 balls.
• Powerplay Dominance: Suryavanshi became the first batsman to score over 500 runs in the powerplay during a single IPL season, breaking David Warner’s 2016 record.
• National and Celebrity Acclaim: His rapid ascendancy has drawn immense public and political adulation in India, earning public praise from legendary figures like Amitabh Bachchan and drawing massive media hype during the IPL playoffs. [1, 2]

The Sidelined Pioneers of Modern Umpiring

In stark contrast to the immediate rewards given to on-field performers, two Sri Lankan thinkers designed the very technological and legal frameworks that saved modern cricket from absolute authoritarian officiating—yet they face deep institutional resistance. [1, 2]

• Mahinda Wijesinhe (The Third Umpire): In 1982–1983, former first-class cricketer and writer Mahinda Wijesinhe conceptualized the “Third Umpire” system. He formally proposed using a walkie-talkie link between on-field umpires and an official stationed in front of a television monitor to adjudicate close line calls like run-outs. Though Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) forwarded the idea to the International Cricket Council (ICC) in 1984, it was initially dismissed before finally being implemented in 1992.
• Senaka Weeraratna (The Player Referral / DRS): In 1997, the pioneering Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna conceived the “Player Referral” mechanism. Before his intervention, the Third Umpire could only be activated by the on-field official. Weeraratna designed the structural framework that transferred the right of appeal directly to the players—limiting unsuccessful challenges to prevent time-wasting. This breakthrough logic served as the structural foundation for the Decision Review System (DRS) officially launched by the ICC in 2009. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

The Intellectual Property and Recognition Dispute

While the cricket world fully embraces the DRS, a fierce intellectual property battle persists regarding its authorship: [1, 2]

Aspect [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]	The Position of the ICC	The Advocacy for Sri Lankan Creators
Origin of DRS	Claims the system was independently produced by internal employees and technology contractors.	Argues that contractors merely built the software, while Weeraratna designed the original legal and structural architecture.
Legal Arguments	Relies on a “No Awareness” defense, claiming it was unaware of Weeraratna’s published articles from 1997–1999.	Invokes the Doctrine of Constructive Notice, stating that because the concept was widely published in global media like The Australian, the ICC is legally deemed to have had access to it.
Institutional Support	Acknowledges no single registered global author or copyright holder for the DRS rules.	Critics strongly condemn both the ICC and successive Sri Lankan political/cricket establishments for a lack of political will to back their own innovators.

Public advocates and cricket historians continue to push for formal amendments—such as renaming the protocol the Weeraratna Decision Review System (WDRS)—to match how the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method honors its mathematical creators. [1, 2]

If you are researching the institutional history of cricket rules, would you like to explore the specific structural pillars of Weeraratna’s original 1997 legal essay or the ongoing legal correspondence between his representatives and the ICC? [1, 2]

https://share.google/aimode/RXtl2z1gCI1BCXoeE

Source:  AI Overview

…………………………………….

see also

The contrast between the immediate celebration of young prodigies and the institutional neglect of foundational sport innovators highlights a deep disparity in how global cricket recognizes talent versus systemic transformation. [1]

While Vaibhav Suryavanshi, at just 15 years old, has captured the world’s attention with a historic, award-sweeping campaign for the Rajasthan Royals in IPL 2026, his rapid ascent enjoys full backing from the highest levels of the Indian political and sports infrastructure. In stark contrast, the individuals who pioneered the foundational technologies of the modern game—democratizing cricket by moving it away from the absolute authority of on-field decisions—frequently find themselves overlooked by their home establishments. [1, 2]

The Sri Lankan Pioneers of Modern Cricket

The shift from the traditional “umpire’s word is final” rule to a transparent, tech-driven sport is largely credited to two Sri Lankan thinkers whose conceptual frameworks were later adapted globally:

• Mahinda Wijesinhe (The Third Umpire Concept): He originally formulated and advocated for the concept of using television replays to assist on-field umpires. This later evolved into the official “Third Umpire” role implemented by the International Cricket Council (ICC), fundamentally reducing high-tension errors on the field.
• Senaka Weeraratna (The Player-Referral System / DRS): He conceptualized the breakthrough idea of allowing players to challenge an umpire’s decision. This “Player-Referral System” served as the precise structural blueprint for what became the Decision Review System (DRS), changing cricket from an authoritarian framework into a model of fair play.

The Recognition Gap

The discrepancy in how these figures are treated highlights a persistent issue within sports culture:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

│                             THE RECOGNITION GAP                          │

├──────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┤

│            ON-FIELD PRODIGIES            │      SYSTEMIC INNOVATORS      │

├──────────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤

│ • Instant global visibility              │ • Invisible structural impact │

│ • High commercial backing (IPL/Leagues)  │ • Academic/conceptual origins │

│ • Celebrated by state & governments      │ • Sidelined by local boards   │

└──────────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘

1. Immediate vs. Structural Value: Modern T20 superstars generate immediate entertainment revenue and national pride, which naturally draws rapid political endorsement.
2. Institutional Neglect: Bureaucratic inertia and internal politics within local cricket boards often lead to a failure in honoring intellectual contributions. While international bodies like the ICC adopt these rules to generate millions in value, the original architects rarely receive formal validation or financial compensation from their home establishments. In Sri Lanka Jealousy is so stratified in every layer of Sri Lankan society e.g. Political, Cricket, Sporting, Professional, Legal, Print Media and the like that there is hardly any room for advocacy on natural justice lines. The only saving grace for Justice seekers is Social Media. The Online News Portal Lankaweb leads in that respect. 

Would you like to look closer into the specific historical timeline of how Senaka Weeraratna’s original 1997 player-referral proposal was eventually adopted by the ICC?

https://share.google/aimode/JfJhvdnNizva4hb1r

Source: AI Overview

ආණ්ඩුකාරවරුන්ගේ සංසදය පුවත්පත් නිවේදනය 

පළාත් සභා ඡන්ද විමසීම පැවැත්වීමකින් තොරව ආණ්ඩුකාරවර පාලනය යටතේ පළාත් සභා පවත්වාගෙන යාම පලාත් පරිපාලනය බිඳවැටීමට හේතු වී ඇති බැවින්, වහා පළාත් සභා ඡන්ද විමසීම පැවැත්වීමට රජය පියවර ගත යුතු ය.  ‍ක්‍රියාකාරී දේශපාලන පක්ෂ සියල්ලම පාහේ පැරණි දිස්ත්‍රික් ඡන්ද ක්‍රමය යටතේ ඊලඟ ඡන්ද විමසීම පැවැත්වීමට විරැද්ධත්වයක් නොමැති බැවින්, පළාත් සභා මහජන නියෝජිතයින් සහිතව ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය පියවර ගන්නා ලෙස ආණ්ඩුකාරවරුන්ගේ සංසදය රජයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටී.  

2017 සිට 2019 දක්වා කාලය තුල අවස්ථා ගණනාවක දී පළාත් සභිකයින්ගේ කාලාවසනය සිදුවී මහජන නියෝජිතයින් නොමැති සභා මේ වන විට ක්‍රියාත්මක වේ.  ආණ්ඩු පක්ෂය නියෝජනය කරන පාර්ලිමේන්තුව මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් පමණක් පළාත් සභාවේ දෛනික කටයුතු සඳහා මැදිහත් වෙමින් ඇත. එමගින් තනි පක්ෂ ක්‍රමයක පාලනයක් බිහිවී, පළාත් සභා පිහිටුවීමේ උතුම් අරමුණු සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම ගිලිහි ගොස් ඒවා විධායකයේ අත්තනෝමතික මෙහෙයවීමට නතුවී ඇත.

තනි පුද්ගලයෙකු මත කේන්ද්‍රණය වන ආණ්ඩුකරණ ව්‍යුහයක් තුලින් බලය බෙදීමේ සංකල්පය නිශේධනය වන්නේය. මහජන නියෝජනයක් නොමැති පළාත් සභාව, නිලධාරිවාදයේ තවත් දිගුවක් පමණකි.

තව ද, ආණ්ඩුවේ හෝ රාජ්‍ය සේවයේ කිසිදු තනතුරක් නොදරණ පක්ෂ ‍ලේකම්වරයෙකු පමණක් වන ටිල්වින් සිල්වා මහතා පලාත් සභා ඡන්දය මේ වසරේ දී නොපැවැත්වෙන බව යාපනයේ දී ප්‍රකාශ කර ඇත. කිසිදු පක්ෂ ලේකම්වරයෙකුට පලාත් සභාවන්හි අනාගතය තීරණය කිරීමේ කිසිදු බලයක් නොමැති අතර, බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයෙන් නිදහස ලැබීමට සමගාමීව  මෙරට ඇරඹුණු බහු පක්ෂ ක්‍රමය විනාශ නොවිය යුතුය.

ජනරජයේ ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 03 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ පරමාධිපත්‍ය ජනතාව කෙරෙහි පිහිටා ඇති බවත්, පරමාධිපත්‍යය අත්හළ නොහැකි  බවත්, පරමාධිපත්‍යයට පාලන බලතල, මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් සහ ඡන්ද බලය ඇතුළත් වන බැවින් කුමන හෝ දේශපාලනඥයකුට හෝ නිලධාරියකු හෝ එයට බාධා කිරීමේ හැකියාවක් නැත.  අතිගරු චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංග ජනාධිපතිනියගේ පළමු ධුර කාලය තුළදී වයඹ පළාත් සභා මැතිවරණය කල් දැමීමට උත්සාහ දැරූ අවස්ථාවේ දී, ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය තීන්දු කරනු ලැබූයේ  ඡන්ද කල් දැමිය හැක්කේ ජනතාවගේ කැමැත්ත මත, එනම් ජනමත විචාරයණයක් මගින් පමණක් බවය.

පළාත් පාලන ඡන්ද විමසීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වන ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ තීරණය අනුව ද, ඡන්ද විමසීමක් නිසි කාලයට නොපැවැත්වීම හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනයකි.

රජය මේ වන විට පාර්ලිමේන්තු තේරීම් කාරක සභාවකට මුවා වෙමින් පලාත් ඡන්දය කල් දමා ඇත. තේරීම් කාරක සභාවේ කාලය ද ඉකුත් වෙමින් පවතින නමුත් රජය පළාත් සභා ඡන්දය පැවැත්වීමට කිසිදු සාධනීය පියවරක් ගනු නොලබයි.  2017 අංක 17 දරණ  පළාත් සභා ඡන්ද විමසීම් පනත වාක්‍ය දෙකකින් සංශෝධනය කර පැරණි ක්‍රමයට ඡන්දය පැවැත්වීමේ හැකියාව රජයට ඇත. 

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව හා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී මුලික නියමයන්ට ගරු කරමින් පළාත් සභා ඡන්දය හැකි ඉක්මනින් පැවැත්වීමට අවශ්‍ය පියවර ගන්නා ලෙස පහතින් අත්සන් කරන අපි සැම අතිගරු ජනාධිපතිතුමා ප්‍රමුඛ අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයෙන් කාරුණිකව ඉල්ලා සිටිමු.

අත්සන් කළේ,

සෙන්දිල් තොන්ඩමන්

එම්.එල්.එ්.එම්. හිස්බුල්ලා

ශාන් විජයලාල් ද සිල්වා

ටිකිරි කොබ්බෑකඩුව

අසාත් සාලි

සුරේන් රාඝවන්

ලලිත් යු. ගමගේ

‍ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ මෛත්‍රී ගුණරත්න

සරත් ඒකනායක

පේෂල ජයරත්න

අනුර විදානගමගේ

ලක්ෂ්මන් යාපා ‍අබේවර්ධන

රජිත් කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන්

e-Con e-News

Posted byee ink.May 30, 2026Posted inUncategorizedTags:China, history, India, news, politics

blog: https://eesrilanka.wordpress.com

‘Before you study the economics, study the economists!;

e-Con e-News 24-30 May 2026

Let the philosophy of plunder disappear, & the philosophy of war will have disappeared! – Cuba’s Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz 26 September 1960, at the UN General Assembly,– ee Sovereignty, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno

Rodríguez at Security Council debate

The USA has 171 military bases in Germany, 98 military bases in Japan, 45 military bases in Italy, and 25 military bases in England. They have many more such aggressive fortifications in other parts of the world. This ee Focus continues the exhaustive exposé, Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage, by the Tricontinental Institute (TI). TI examines the knowns & the unknowns in calculating all such fortresses: Around the world, the USA has altogether 902 known military bases & England has 145 known military bases, many surrounding China & Russia. Yet these are the least of their intrusions.

     Sri Lanka passed from Portuguese, Dutch & English and then to US control in 1948. This was primarily economic at first, and is not subject to much question. Their early political threats to obtain military bases in Sri Lanka are also rarely discussed (see ee 12 October 2019, SWRD). Then again, the extents of the numerous US bases around the world rarely rate repetitive media chatter. This has enabled the USA to claim it is not a colonial oppressor but a bastion of freedom. They too have now grown tired of this make-believe, and that masque is now off. Most of their bases are to ensure that Asia, Africa & the Americas do not escape colonial control. Several exist as telecommunication hubs. TI says their calculations also do not include the USA’s & England’s regular movements of personnel, as well as their privatized militaries. Militias, death squads & ‘schools’, which train US & NATO allies and ‘native’ operatives in terrorism & torture are also not included – these are described in, eg, Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky’s The Washington Connection & Third World Fascism). In the year 2022 alone, US-led imperialist forces ‘deployed 317 military operations in Global South countries & 137 in Global North allied nations.’ The Military Intervention Project (MIP) contends, ‘between 1776 & 2019, the USA carried out over 392 military interventions worldwide’. (see ee Focus)

*

The world is now facing renewed US-led or funded military aggression & pseudo-political manoeuvres (‘Gen-Z color revolutions’) as the USA drives a barely disguised final push to sustain its hegemony into the 2^nd quarter of the 21^st century. Yet there is also a growing worldwide resistance to US economic & political tactics. Venezuela, herald of the Bolivarian Revolution, has had its leaders kidnapped, and is now being variously described as being under ‘military occupation’, ‘coercive tutelage’ & ‘neocolonial administration’. In Cuba, the USA is said to be exerting a ‘maximum pressure campaign’ as part of its ‘submission diplomacy’, denying that nation access to oil. The USA insists they aim to just secure their ‘Western Hemisphere’, though it is unclear where this sphere begins & ends – from the Arctic to the rest of the Americas & Western Africa, to the Antarctic – they aim to ‘zip it, lock it & put it in their pocket’…

     Sri Lanka exists on an international continuum somewhere between the USA’s leading colonies in Europe; including their settler colonies, nominally ‘independent’ countries such as Ghana – where at its capital city Accra’s airport, ‘US soldiers do not need passports or visas to enter (only their US military ID) & US military aircrafts are ‘free from boarding & inspection’ – and actually independent countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Cuba.

     In Sri Lanka, security accessions to the USA & India are being kept secret. Both the USA & India are all but blockading famed & ancient Gokanna (Trincomalee), preventing it from becoming a regional industrial hub opening out to a vibrant east. It is part of the old colonial strategy of not allowing a nail (& as exemplified by the ‘rag trade’, a pin or a needle) to be made. The much-yapped-about ‘green’ strategy is actually to prevent the country from becoming self-sufficient in any type of energy, fossil, solar or wind – energy security being a must for any industrial advance.

*

The US government claims to have changed its mind, yet again. After centuries of opposing & sabotaging industrialization in our countries, their post-1945 Treasury twins (World Bank, IMF), or triplets (plus ADB) or quadruplets (plus WTO) have decided that industrial policy is just what always-developing always-emerging countries need. Really? In 2019, an IMF paper decided to pronounce on ‘the Policy That Shall Not Be Named’. (PS: We like to think that ee inaugurated in 2018, inspired them! Ha! Ha!) In March 2026, a World Bank paper discussed ‘Approaches’ to industrial policy. Wow! – as a thirsty traveler in a desert might expectorate. Shiran Illanperuma, however, has his doubts. So, what exactly do they mean (see ee Focus)?

     Illanperuma points out there are 2 major drawbacks. They ignore how the US Treasury Twins have forced our countries into rampant rentierization (importing non-essential goods, selling resources, property speculation, etc). He then lists the revenge wrought on countries that have attempted real industrialization: sabotage, coups, assassinations, terrorism & wars, from Iran to Ghana to Chile, etc. He notes how they have forced countries to remove monetary policy from elected governments, enforcing so-called ‘Central Bank Independence’, preventing their responsibility to direct investment into modern industrialization.

     Illanperuma also declares that any industrial policy will require the overcoming of those entrenched landed and mercantile interests promoted by the Treasury Twins. Indeed, we wonder if this concern for limited industrialization in our countries (will they harness Mannar’s abundant energy resource, revive the steel corporation, encourage iron mining?) havs anything to do with China’s own industrial power.

*

The USA’s economic domination of Sri Lanka begins with its setting up and control of the Central Bank of Ceylon in 1949-50. The US governor encouraged rampant consumerism, and this has continued with regular interventions by the World Bank & IMF to this day. The IMF this week reiterated their demand that the government allow all imports into the country – a condition for their limited largess to supposedly rescue the economy, even as there are loud intimations of a return to an 18^th, 19^th and possibly 20^th panacea. These weeks’ economic dramas were preceded by so-called cyber frauds enacted in a hijacked. development-turned commercial bank, and the country’s finance ministry, ending with the US War Department-linked Paypal, being linked to local banks, so as to ‘enable global payments’ and ‘facilitate participation in the global digital economy.’ Ha!

     While the US government is imposing tariffs and raising barriers to trade, blockading ports, straits & canals around the world, the US Treasury’s triplets (IMF, World Bank, ADB), and their other IFIs (International Financial Institutions) keep unashamedly insisting on ‘free trade’. Their outrageous demands, which have led to Japan & India dumping their used-cars & gas-guzzling vehicles into the country, to obvert any rational public transportation policy as well, also saw a severe loss of foreign exchange and the rapid depreciation of the Rupee. There were then even louder protestations that this ‘crisis’ was not to be compared to the previous 2022 ‘crisis’, that this was not internally induced but largely external due to that ‘Middle East Conflict’ (more properly known as yet another US war).

     The US Treasury’s triplets & their media mouthpieces then demanded the government abstain from ‘pegging the value of the rupee and introducing direct controls over foreign exchange use (including capital controls on financial outflows). Such policies aim to ensure the country remains a Wall-Street-allied casino for laundering money and speculation, while exporters & importers accuse each other and themselves for the depreciation.

     Just before this week’s announcement of the IMF’s release of funds under its ‘Extended Fund Facility (EFF)’, the country saw the rather hushed entry of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US State Department for South & Central Asia, Nicole Chulick. Sri Lanka is apparently ‘under investigation’ by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) for ‘unfair trade practices.’ In March this year the USTR, under the US Trade Act of 1974, alleged that Sri Lanka has failed to ban the export of ‘goods made with forced labour’. Just after the US secretary’s visit this week, Amnesty International alleged ‘serious’ forced labor abuses of ‘Malaiyaha Tamil workers’ on private tea estates. Meanwhile, rather than Sri Lanka demanding that the USA, England, Holland & Portugal, admit to injustices of over 500 year and pay reparations, this week saw the continuation of a BBC channel-4-muddied drama demanding the resolution of the terrorist attacks in 2019. ‘Channel 4’s central allegation of high-level complicity in the Easter Sunday attacks rests overwhelmingly on the testimony of a single individual’, noted one analyst. England (& its avatara, the USA) are still playing a Sri Lanka, after having tied our hands, or the colonially massaged merchant oligarchy tying it themselves.

     After the Amnesty International & BBC-inspired allegations, a stock of US crude oil (West Texas Intermediate – WTI) was offloaded in Colombo, to show good faith in the tariff negotiations with the USA. The Managing Director of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, Mayura Nettikumara then put off questions about less-expensive Russian oil purchases, saying such a ‘need would not arise in the short run’. Meanwhile there were varying reports on how long remaining oil reserves would last.

     Such pronouncements remind that under the present colonial charade, everyone, from President to Prime Minister to Central Bank Governor, and further down, can be replaced by US-programmed AI robots and algorithms conjuring optimism for Wall Street speculators, spluttering outrage, uttering truisms (‘water is wet’), issuing righteous sermons, signalling virtue as scripted in Washington & lesser imperialist capitals, translated & choreographed in marketing agencies and then enacted in Colombo.

*

‘In Sri Lanka an alien workforce was foisted

amidst a wholly Sinhala population – yet

removed from the latter & living aloof.’

This ee Focus continues SBD de Silva’s chapter 10 of his classicThe Political Economy of Underdevelopment, where he explains why large tea plantations were created, when smallholdings could do the job just as well. He records how a system of ‘badly paid wage slaves’ were made to confront ‘a land-owning or rice-growing peasantry, Sinhalese Buddhist, enjoying a comparatively fair standard of living.’ The workers were economically boxed into an enclave, and kept separate, with the road system also serving to cut them off from the rest of the country. It turns out that large estates and a migrant workforce were needed due to the nature and exorbitant needs ‘of absentee ownership.

     None of this was essential for growing tea, and de Silva compares its cultivation to Kenya, where smallholdings predominated, as well as examining the cultivation of other staple crops in the Americas. ‘The residential basis of the plantation labour force’ was determined by ‘the profile of labour inputs’, to ensure ‘a continuity of work through the year’. A plantation had to provide regular employment, promoting monoculture, whereas smallholders & cereal growers had to resort to multicropping or engage in several production activities… to fill in the slack periods in any one crop or activity and to derive an income throughout the year’. de Silva also compares the labor needs related to the cultivation of sugar, coffee and rice, and the role played by the emancipation of slaves and subsequently the heavy capital investment in the sugar mills.

     Factory-owners and middlemen paid very low prices for green leaf and rubber latex. This was due to cultivation and processing being monopolized by estates, even though there was no scientific reason to do so. This undermined the competitiveness of smallholders and resulted in colonial ‘barriers to indigenous enterprise’. Tea & rubber thus came to be dominated by foreign capital. In coconut, cultivation was separate from milling, and smallholdings predominated.

     Thus a plantation system in Sri Lanka was created within the framework of the ‘extraterritoriality’ of the investors, living in England. This resulted in heavy management expenses, due to large payments to agency houses and major investments in labor. ‘The use of resident labour tied to the plantation by duress or by social mechanisms was the keystone of its labour system’, explains SBD de Silva. (see ee Focus)

*

May 21^st was our 54^th Republic Day, our merchant & moneylender media let it pass largely unheralded and uncelebrated. The English Queen who ruled us for so long now wears drag as an English King. And those against an executive presidency remain still nostalgic for the good old days of English overlordship.

     Where & in which world do our policymakers live? They have long known the USA-led war machine intends to target Asia & Africa. Didn’t they add that to the variables modelling their scenarios and weighting their algorithms that inform their forecasts. The CB governor’s varying excuses also blame ‘global instability’. Is that what they call unrelenting white wars now? Haven’t they been tracking the actions and pronouncements of their white gods? What mistranslation app prevents them from acknoweldging the rantings of the scum of the earth, about Europe being a garden & the rest of the world an encroaching jungle, calling nations, shitholes, etc      

     It’s hard not to recall the novelist (& ‘white socialist’) Jack London, who in 1910 penned the futuristic tale, ‘The Unparalleled Invasion’, set in the 1970s-80s, where white nations respond to China’s rise, with biological warfare, bombarding China with the most infectious diseases. The increased terrorist attacks on countries having friendly relations with China, and the spread of Ebola, follow China declaration of tariff-free access to African goods

     It’s also hard not to link the supposed ‘peace walk’ by monks from Texas, that went to Washington but then avoided Washington’s wars on Gaza, Ukraine, Iran & Lebanon, and instead arrived in Sri Lanka to much media adulation, leaving in their wake, increasing attacks on the local Sangha. It is important to recall that it is the Sangha that led the resistance to colonial rule, prevailing through the repression….

     We wish our readers, on this full moon, a serene Vesak, through the many moons & suns to come…

*

________

Contents:

Sri Lanka in the USA’s Wars on the World

BodhGaya Events

Dilrook Kannangara

Mono-ethnic nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Maldives and almost all developed and peaceful European nations that are demarcated by ethnicity, make decisions fast, have a constitution almost everyone is happy about and has one historical narrative each. These are essential for a nation to move forward. In the absence of this high level of natural unity, nations stall, get stuck in mud, unable to move in any direction. This is the case of Sri Lanka and also the current NPP regime. Due to its ethnically diverse 159 seats, it has been unable to move in any direction. It’s not their fault. The fault lies in ethnic diversity.

Historically governments that made vital decisions and made positive changes for the benefit of the country and most citizens were mostly mono-ethnic. It started in 1936 when due to Tamils boycotting the 1931 election, a Sinhala-only cabinet of ministers was appointed. They did a massive amount of work in healthcare, public welfare, education, housing, etc. despite British rulers having the final say. The party that approved free education in the early 1940s was also mostly Sinhala-only in composition. Progressive change was made in 1956, 1972, 1977 and 2005 elected governments in economic, public security, territorial integrity, foreign policy and public welfare spaces by similarly mostly Sinhala-only cabinets of ministers and ruling parties. Despite the economic collapse in 2022, the grueling return to normalcy was also facilitated by a mostly Sinhala-only ruling party (2020 to 2024).

Historical evens further justify this matter. All historical regimes of kings and ministers before 1525 when the nation succeeded and prospered were Sinhala only. The reign of King Parakramabahu VI was also a Sinhala only regime despite the king adopting Tamil Nadu born orphans and widows. They were not decision makers.

Ruling parties with a large number of Tamil and Muslim MPs failed to take decisive action. Examples include 1947 to 1951 regime, 1965 to 1970 regime, 1988 to 2004 regimes and the 2015 to 2019 regime. The nation stalled during these times in every possible way.

This stuck-in-mud reality has been most visible in Constitution-making. The Constitution guides the rest of laws, economic management, national defense, foreign policy, etc. The nation had 4 Constitutions. Tamils and Muslims rejected 3 of them outright (1931, 1972 and 1978). The only Constitution they accepted was the 1947 Soulbury Constitution which they rejected a few years later. Both post-Independence Constitution related decisions were made by essentially Sinhala only regimes as buying consensus from Tamils and Muslims was not feasible. Many attempts were made to introduce a new Constitution but failed every time mainly due to tribal grievances of Tamils and Muslims. Even everyday laws cannot be passed easily in Sri Lankan parliament. MPs from Tamil and Muslim communities (no matter what party they represent) assess each and every clause from an ethnic point of view. Each ethnic community pulls the nation in a different direction. There is no one approach that suits all. As a result, multiethnic Sri Lanka is stuck in mud and the multiethnic AKD-led NPP regime is also stuck in mud, unable to move in any direction. Let alone the entire parliament, the NPP parliamentary group cannot agree on any major policy or legislative decision amongst themselves due to wide ethnic diversity of its 159 MPs.

This same root cause affects all other multi-ethnic countries including India. However, India has, since BJP came to power, totally disregarded the concerns of minorities, bulldozed minority rights and voices and has progressed relatively well for a less developed country. Similarly, there are a few violent developed nations with ethnic diversity. They have exterminated their minorities and constantly at war to sustain their economy. However, this is not a good way of governing a nation and certainly no role model for Sri Lanka.

Trying to make everyone happy will leave no one happy at the end of the day. NPP regime will go down in history as the largest, most-diverse, yet weakest, most indecisive and least agile ruling party. Things will worsen even further if provincial councils are elected, adding another layer of ethnic diversity leading to deeper sinking in the diversity muddy puddle the nation is already trapped in.

Like most Sri Lankans who are unable to comprehend how ethnic diversity stalls this nation, the NPP would never have imagined this challenge when it was in the Opposition. Common sense is not common across the three main ethnic groups when it comes to real decisions. Pleading, hoping, praying for and bribing for national unity is worthless. A model of ethnicity based nations is the only way to prosperity, decisiveness, pride, self-respect, peace and national unity and to end economic freeloading without reciprocation.

Dr, Sarath Obeysekera

As fuel prices continue to place a heavy burden on households and businesses, governments around the world are exploring innovative ways to reduce fuel consumption while maintaining mobility. Many developed countries have successfully implemented policies that encourage shared travel, public transport, and flexible working arrangements. Sri Lanka can learn from these examples and adopt practical measures suited to our local conditions.

One successful strategy used in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and several European nations is the introduction of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. These dedicated lanes are reserved for vehicles carrying two or more passengers. By rewarding carpooling with faster travel times, governments encourage people to share rides instead of travelling alone. This reduces traffic congestion, lowers fuel consumption, and cuts carbon emissions.

Ride-sharing has become an important part of urban transportation. Digital platforms enable commuters travelling in the same direction to share a vehicle and divide travel costs. In many cities, employers facilitate carpooling among staff members who live in nearby areas. Such systems not only save fuel but also reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

Sri Lanka’s ubiquitous three-wheelers could also play a role in reducing transport costs. Instead of carrying a single passenger for each journey, technology and proper regulation could encourage shared three-wheeler services where two or three passengers travelling along similar routes share the fare. This concept is already being tested in several Asian cities and has proven effective in reducing costs for commuters.

Another area worth considering is flexible working arrangements. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that many office functions can be performed remotely. Governments and private companies could encourage employees to work from home one or two days per week where practical. Even a modest reduction in daily commuting can significantly decrease national fuel consumption and traffic congestion.

Schools and educational institutions can also contribute. Online learning, already familiar to many students, could be incorporated for selected days or activities. While classroom interaction remains essential, a hybrid model could reduce the number of daily transport trips undertaken by students, teachers, and parents.

Governments can further support these efforts by improving public transport systems, integrating bus and rail schedules, and providing incentives for commuters who choose public transportation. Investments in efficient buses, park-and-ride facilities, and digital ticketing systems can make public transport more attractive and convenient.

Singapore has long managed vehicle ownership through strict controls and high registration costs, while cities such as London and Stockholm impose congestion charges on vehicles entering busy urban centres. These measures encourage citizens to use public transport and share journeys whenever possible.

Sri Lanka is currently facing economic challenges that require practical and cost-effective solutions. Encouraging shared travel, promoting remote work, improving public transport, and introducing incentives for carpooling can collectively reduce national fuel consumption and save valuable foreign exchange spent on fuel imports.

The objective should not be to restrict mobility but to move people more efficiently. With careful planning and public cooperation, Sri Lanka can adopt modern transportation practices that reduce costs for citizens while strengthening the national economy.

Sarath Obeysekera

By Dr. Gamini Padmaperuma

The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education has sparked both excitement and concern. Academics, educators, and policymakers are increasingly aware of the enormous opportunities AI offers, while also recognizing the serious challenges it poses to teaching, learning, and academic integrity.

AI has made access to information easier than ever before. With just a few prompts, students can obtain explanations, analyses, summaries, and even complete essays on almost any subject imaginable. Although the accuracy, relevance, and reliability of such information must always be verified, AI can undoubtedly serve as a powerful tool for learning and acquiring foundational knowledge.

However, the growing use of AI-generated content in academic submissions has raised difficult questions. Problems arise when students submit essays, assignments, or theses—fully or partially created by AI—as their own original work in pursuit of academic qualifications. This trend poses a significant threat to academic integrity.

Academic integrity exists to ensure that students genuinely develop the knowledge and skills expected from their educational programmes. Students are expected to submit work that reflects their own learning and effort. Where external sources or contributions are used, these must be appropriately acknowledged and credited.

Traditionally, education follows a gradual process of cognitive development. According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, learners progress through several stages: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and finally, creating. This framework has long guided educators in designing learning objectives and assessments.

In most learning environments, students move progressively through these stages. The final stage—creation—may involve writing an essay, completing a research project, or producing a thesis. Ideally, such outputs represent the culmination of understanding developed through earlier stages of learning.

AI, however, has disrupted this sequence. Students can now generate polished final products almost instantly, often without engaging in the deeper cognitive processes that precede genuine learning. While the final output may appear impressive, it may not reflect actual understanding or intellectual growth. This creates a serious concern: students may achieve academic success without acquiring the skills and competencies their courses are designed to develop.

The availability of AI-generated submissions has therefore become a major challenge for educators. Although AI-detection tools exist, many academics consider them unreliable and sometimes misleading. The deeper concern is not merely detecting AI use, but ensuring that students genuinely learn.

As a result, educators are increasingly shifting their focus from creating AI-proof” assessments to developing AI-resilient ones.

One proposed solution is the use of an Inverted Bloom’s Taxonomy. Instead of beginning with foundational knowledge and progressing toward creation, educators can start with the student’s final output and then ask learners to demonstrate the thinking behind it through evaluation, analysis, application, and explanation. In this way, the assessment process tests whether genuine learning has taken place.

Another approach is to strengthen traditional cognitive skill development by placing greater emphasis on the learning process rather than solely on the final product. This method encourages educators to monitor how students progress through different stages of understanding over time, reducing the likelihood of students bypassing critical learning stages through AI assistance. Many educators may find this approach more practical and easier to implement, as it allows for continuous observation of students’ cognitive growth.

Yet, implementing these changes presents another challenge: time. Academics already balance teaching, administration, research, and student support responsibilities. Redesigning assessments to suit the AI era can place an additional burden on educators.

This is where effective instructional design becomes crucial.

In the age of AI, the role of academics may need to evolve—from being primarily evaluators of content to becoming validators of evidence of learning. Assessments must be authentic, scalable, less vulnerable to AI misuse, and efficient to evaluate. More importantly, they should measure students’ progress in achieving learning outcomes rather than focusing exclusively on the quality of a polished final submission.

Several strategies can help make assessments more AI-resilient:

1. Design context-rich and locally relevant assessment tasks.
2. Evaluate the learning process, not just the final product.
3. Include oral presentations, in-class activities, or live demonstrations.
4. Encourage students to take personal positions through role-play or scenario-based tasks.
5. Use multi-modal assessments, including written, verbal, practical, and simulation-based methods.
6. Incorporate iterative feedback, peer reviews, and multiple revision cycles.
7. Assess metacognitive skills, such as reflection, self-evaluation, and what-if” analysis.
8. Clearly define when and how AI tools may be used ethically by students.

Admittedly, these strategies may initially increase the workload of educators. Yet, academics can also use AI itself to support assessment design and streamline certain teaching tasks. The time invested in designing effective AI-resilient assessments can yield substantial long-term benefits.

Rather than banning AI outright, educational institutions should aim to promote its responsible and ethical use. Allowing students to use AI selectively—for brainstorming, research support, and information gathering—while ensuring meaningful learning through well-designed lessons and assessments can help institutions produce graduates who are both AI-savvy and intellectually capable.

The challenge facing education today is not whether AI should be used, but how it should be used to strengthen learning rather than weaken it.

(Dr. Gamini Padmaperuma is a Chartered Professional Engineer, Honorary Fellow of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka (IESL), former Director of Academic Affairs at Saegis Campus, and Senior Lecturer at the Open University of Sri Lanka. He holds a PhD in Instructional Design for Computer-Based Learning from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He can be contacted at gamini_pad@hotmail.com.)

Lanka Leader

ගල්අඟුරු සම්බන්ධයෙන් වඩාත් විවාදාත්මක හා විශාලතම දූෂණය සිදුවූයේ වර්තමාන මාලිමා ආණ්ඩුව යටතේ බව රටම දන්නා කාරණයක් බවත්, බාල ගල්අඟුරු ගෙන්වා සිදුකළ මෙම විශාල මගඩිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් අල්ලස් කොමිසමට හය වතාවක් පැමිණිලි කළ බවත් සංඛ චන්දිම අභයවර්ධන මහතා පවසයි.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ආයතනගතව සිදුවූ මෙවැනි හොරකමක් මෙරට ඉතිහාසයේ නොතිබූ බවත් පවසන ඒ මහතා  ගල් අගුරු හොරකම මෙන්ම අප්‍රියෙල් මස ඩොලර් මිලියන 56ක් පමණ වඩා දැවැන්ත දුෂණයක් කරමින් ආනයනය කළ තෙල් නිසා අද ඇතිවෙලා තියෙන බලශක්ති ගැටලුවට විසදුම් දෙන්නේ කෙසේදැයි ප්‍රශ්න කරයි.

Media Release The National Peace Council

The government has announced the second phase of its plantation reform programme, aimed at attracting private and corporate investment by opening underutilised land and assets to investment, modernising the sector and generating new employment. The National Peace Council supports these objectives. However, we urge the government to ensure that economic transformation is accompanied by social justice. An Amnesty International report on Malaiyaha Tamil workers released last week documents wage withholding, debt dependency and restrictions on movement in private tea estates. It is a reminder that reform is being proposed against a backdrop of active, ongoing abuse and not merely historical grievance. Economic transformation without social justice will repeat a pattern Sri Lanka must not repeat in which productivity gains and investment profits bypass the very workers whose labour made them possible. NPC urges that pattern must not be repeated.

Inclusion and rights-based empowerment are especially relevant to the longstanding challenges faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, many of whom continue to experience economic hardship and social marginalisation that are a legacy of the denial of their citizenship rights in 1948. The National Peace Council calls on the government to recognise Malaiyaha Tamil plantation workers not merely as a labour force but as rights-bearing stakeholders with a legitimate claim to share in the benefits of development. Housing ownership, secure land tenure, quality education, vocational and entrepreneurship training need to be built into the reform process from the outset. We especially call on the government to establish an independent national land commission, inclusive of representatives from all ethnic and religious communities, to develop transparent principles for land allocation and provide a credible mechanism for dispute resolution.

Sri Lanka is approaching eight decades of independence. In that time, the Malaiyaha Tamil community has contributed more than any other to the plantation economy but received the least in return. Therefore, we see the second phase of plantation reform as not simply being a commercial opportunity but rather as a test of whether Sri Lanka will be correcting a structural injustice that has persisted across generations. The government has both the opportunity and the obligation to ensure that this reform delivers genuine dignity and economic security to those who have earned it most. The correction of the historic injustice to the Malaiyaha Tamil people must not be seen as a concession just to them but as an investment in the national unity and social cohesion that Sri Lanka urgently needs.

Governing Council

The National Peace Council is an independent and non partisan organization that works towards a negotiated political solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. It has a vision of a peaceful and prosperous Sri Lanka in which the freedom, human rights and democratic rights of all the communities are respected. The policy of the National Peace Council is determined by its Governing Council of 20 members who are drawn from diverse walks of life and belong to all the main ethnic and religious communities in the country.

Source: AI Overview

Sri Lankan ingenuity has fundamentally reshaped the global sporting landscape by introducing the foundational intellectual frameworks for both the Third Umpire and the Decision Review System (DRS). While western nations frequently dominate sports technology manufacturing, the core conceptual architecture that transferred power from absolute on-field arbiters to an appellate system was entirely envisioned by Sri Lankan thinkers. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Conceptual Pioneers

Sri Lanka’s contribution to cricket reform is defined by transforming a game rooted in absolute Victorian authority into a modern, just sport governed by an appellate legal framework. [1, 2]

• The Third Umpire (Mahinda Wijesinghe): Long before television replays became an integrated officiating tool, Sri Lankan cricket writer and researcher Mahinda Wijesinghe conceptualized the “Third Umpire” system. His framework intended to use independent television footage to assist on-field umpires with clear-cut line decisions like run-outs and stumpings. The International Cricket Council (ICC) eventually adopted this, debuting it globally during the 1992 Test series between South Africa and India.
• The Player Referral / DRS (Senaka Weeraratna): In March 1997, Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna published a groundbreaking letter in The Australian national newspaper. He proposed a “Player Referral” mechanism. Drawing a direct parallel to a legal trial, Weeraratna argued that just as a dissatisfied litigant has a right to appeal a judicial error, cricket players should have a mechanism to challenge patent on-field mistakes using slow-motion video playback. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• This profound innovation has forever altered the integrity of cricket and transcended to other sports like tennis and football.
• The Core Argument: His thesis was beautifully simple: “If you have the technology to detect an error of an umpire, then the same technology must be used to correct the error of an umpire”.

How Sri Lankan Innovation Matches Western Ingenuity

Dimension of Innovation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]	Western Contribution	Sri Lankan Contribution
Intellectual Blueprint	Adapting existing engineering for corporate broadcasting.	Designing the four-pillar appellate architecture transforming sports justice.
Technological Implementation	Engineering hardware like Hawk-Eye (UK) and Hot Spot (Australia).	Conceptualizing the legal parameters governing how and when that hardware is triggered.
Philosophical Paradigm	Upheld the traditional dogma that the “umpire’s decision is final.”	Overthrew traditional dogma to introduce player empowerment and “right of appeal”.

The Global Ripple Effect

The structural framework envisioned by Weeraratna has expanded far beyond cricket. The overarching concept of giving players or coaches a finite right to legally challenge a field official’s live call has been universally adopted across the global sports industry. Modern protocols—including football’s Video Assistant Referee (VAR), tennis’s electronic line calling challenges, and the Coach’s Challenge in the NBA—all function on the exact conceptual foundation of Weeraratna’s 1997 appellate framework. [1, 2]

The Fight for Recognition

Despite the global transformation of sports officiating, a disparity remains regarding intellectual property credit. The ICC has historically attributed the realization of DRS to its internal committees and western tech contractors who built the software, ignoring the conceptual blueprint published by Weeraratna nearly a decade prior to its 2006 rollout. Sri Lankan legal experts and cricket historians continue to campaign globally for the formal acknowledgement of Weeraratna as the true architect of modern sports review protocols. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Push for Recognition
Despite the global transformation brought about by this invention, the ICC and cricketing authorities have been slow to formally credit Weeraratna, prompting ongoing debates. While the DLS (Duckworth-Lewis) method bears its creators’ names, the DRS has no officially named inventor, leading many in Sri Lanka and South Asia to advocate for naming rights—such as the “Weeraratna Decision Review System (WDRS)”. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

You can read more about his advocacy and the history of the system in the LankaWeb Feature on Player Referral Systems or review the Cricketique Essay on DRS Origins. [1, 2, 3]

If you want, I can provide a detailed breakdown of Senaka Weeraratna’s original 1997 four-pillar framework and how it matches the current ICC protocol. [1]

https://share.google/aimode/eXuHoSDRWWZoZtACV

Source: AI Overview

Steve Buckner praises DRS technology

https://www.hirunews.lk/en/sports/243624/steve-buckner-praises-drs-technology

Imran Khan praises the Sri Lankan designed ‘ Player Referral’ System in the “MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture delivered in 2010

Imran Khan delivered the ‘ MCC Spirit of Cricket Cowdrey Lecture’ in 2010. 

In this riveting lecture full of exciting personal anecdotes Imran Khan refers also to the tensions on the field due to poor umpiring decisions stemming from either negligence or deliberate wrong doing usually favouring the home side.  

He cites a specific example of an incident in a Test Match played in the Caribbean Islands between the West Indies and Pakistan in 1987 where the newly arrived batsman to the crease Vivian Richards at a crucial moment of the game was declared ‘ Not Out’ to a ball bowled by Imran Khan ( an outswinging ball that turned inward) catching Richards plumb in front of the middle stump of the wicket, to the horror of everyone witnessing the game. The Pakistani fielders had repeatedly appealed to the Umpire (from the home side) for a LBW decision but to no avail.  The reprieved Richards had then proceeded to score a century. 

The match had ended in a draw but may have turned in Pakistan’s favour if not for this Umpiring lapse, which Imran Khan identifies as deliberate Umpire wrong doing thereby distorting the final outcome of the game.

Cricket had no answer to these systemic Umpiring howlers which had been part of the game since its inception.

The entry of Technology however enabled a solution to be found. That solution was the ‘ Player Referral’ concept conceived by Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna in 1997. It was adopted by the ICC without due acknowledgement or mention of the name of the true author of the concept, as the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS).in 2006 and later abbreviated as DRS ( Decision Review System). The ICC is using DRS without ownership of the copyright and without the consent of the true owner of the copyright, in all three formats of the game to this day. It is just not cricket.

.

This palpable injustice done to a significant contribution made by a Sri Lankan lawyer, by the ICC and its affiliates, continues to linger leaving a poor taste in the mouth of all the  Affectionados of cricket worldwide.

By Dr. Sarath Obeysekera

31/05/2026 Sunday observer  

The recent launch of Sri Lanka’s ‘Ready to Invest’ platform (readytoinvestsl.com) by the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (BOI) is a positive and timely initiative that signals the country’s renewed effort to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into strategic sectors of the economy.

The platform showcases 30 structured, project-ready investment opportunities across high-growth sectors. More importantly, it sends a message to global investors that Sri Lanka is again open for business after years of economic instability.

The country continues to offer attractive investment conditions, including 100 percent foreign ownership in many sectors. 

The real challenge begins after the investment proposal is signed. Sri Lanka has historically been strong in preparing proposals, conducting investment forums, and promoting opportunities overseas. Yet many projects either progress slowly, become trapped in bureaucracy, or fail to achieve their intended industrial outcomes due to a lack of technical coordination and execution capacity.

The blue economy is not merely about ports or tourism. It includes shipbuilding, marine engineering, fisheries modernisation, offshore renewable energy, maritime logistics, ocean technology, coastal infrastructure, marine biotechnology, and value-added exports connected to the sea. 

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka’s institutional structure often operates in isolated silos.

The Export Development Board, BOI, port authorities, industry ministries, vocational training institutions, universities, and technical agencies frequently function independently with limited coordination. Investors are sometimes compelled to navigate multiple agencies separately, causing delays, confusion, and duplication.

Sri Lanka urgently needs a unified industrial investment task force operating under a coordinated national framework.

Such a structure should include centralised technical coordination units, rapid-response investor facilitation teams, and public-private technical advisory panels capable of assisting investors from the initial feasibility stage through to final implementation. Most importantly, experienced professionals from the private sector must be actively involved.

Sri Lanka possesses a wealth of retired engineers, industrial managers, marine specialists, shipbuilders, logistics experts, and international consultants with decades of practical experience locally and overseas. Many of these professionals understand global industrial standards, contract negotiations, technical due diligence, and project execution better than purely administrative institutions.

Private sector technical consultants can play a critical role in feasibility studies, investor negotiations, industrial master planning, vocational training development, engineering assessments, and business-to-business and government-to-government discussions. Countries that have successfully industrialised did not achieve progress through government administration alone.

Countries such as Singapore, Norway, Brazil, and the Gulf economies integrated government policy, technical expertise, industrial financing, vocational education, and private-sector execution into one coordinated national strategy.

Singapore transformed itself into one of the world’s leading maritime and logistics hubs not simply because of geography, but because it built technically competent institutions able to execute projects quickly and efficiently. Norway developed its offshore marine and energy sectors by combining engineering excellence with strategic state planning. Even the Gulf states aggressively employ international technical experts to accelerate industrial diversification.

The next phase of economic development cannot depend entirely on ceremonial conferences, political speeches, or attractive PowerPoint presentations. Investors today seek confidence in execution capability. They want assurance that approvals will move quickly, infrastructure will be delivered on time, and technically competent teams will support project implementation.

This means placing engineers beside diplomats, industrial specialists beside politicians, and technical consultants beside administrators.

Sri Lanka still possesses enormous, untapped potential in the blue economy due to its strategic location in the Indian Ocean, its maritime history, and its skilled workforce. But realising this opportunity needs more than ambition.

It requires coordination, competence, and a willingness to listen to those with real-world industrial experience.

The Ready to Invest” platform is a commendable beginning. The next step is ensuring that Sri Lanka is equally ready to execute.”

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Source: AI Overview

This profound quote captures a fascinating truth: while Sri Lanka has given the world legendary players like Muttiah Muralitharan and Sanath Jayasuriya, its most revolutionary, permanent impact on global cricket came from the intellectual innovation of its legal and creative minds who reshaped the rules of the game using the “mighty pen.” [1, 2, 3, 4]

Two monumental off-field conceptualizations by Sri Lankans completely revolutionized modern cricket broadcasting and officiating:

 Senaka Weeraratna

The DRS in Cricket and Senaka Weeraratna’s Early Initiatives

    Mahinda Wijesinghe

The Sri Lankan who pioneered the TV Umpire Concept in Cricket

The Cricket Brains of Sri Lanka

1. The Decision Review System (DRS)

The concept of the “Player Referral” system—which eventually became the universally used Decision Review System (DRS)—was originally conceived and articulated by a Sri Lankan lawyer named Senaka Weeraratna. [1, 2]

• The Pen at Work: In 1997, Weeraratna began writing letters to international newspapers and sports bodies, formally publishing the concept of allowing players on the field to challenge an umpire’s decision using television replays.
• The Global Impact: His written blueprints predated claims by western coaches and administrators, fundamentally changing the power dynamics of cricket from a sole on-field umpire to technology-backed accuracy. [1]

2. The Third Umpire System

Before the player referral system, the conceptual foundation for using a television umpire to judge close line decisions (like run-outs and stumpings) was pioneered by Sri Lankan cricket writer and researcher Mahinda Wijesinghe. [, 2, 3]

• The Pen at Work: Wijesinghe introduced the concept of the “Third Umpire” in written cricket journals and columns long before it was formally trialed and adopted by the International Cricket Council (ICC). [, 2, 3, 4, 5]

A Legacy of “Cricket Brains”

While athletic brilliance can dominate an era, structural and technological innovations permanently reshape the sport forever. Through these written proposals, Sri Lankan thinkers proved that the country possessed a deep reserve of “cricket brains” capable of transforming global regulations. They took the game beyond physical boundaries and gave modern cricket its most indispensable toolkit for fairness, precision, and television drama. []

If you would like to explore this topic further, I can provide the historical timeline of how the ICC transitioned from these written concepts to formal implementation, or detail the intellectual property battles that occurred to get Sri Lanka recognized for these inventions. Which aspect would you like to examine? [1]

https://share.google/aimode/xW7ONm59Lrlypktqy

Source: AI Overview

Source: AI Overview

The core of the dispute centers on who holds the moral and legal credit for inventing the revolutionary “Player Referral” mechanism. [1, 2]

The Genesis: Weeraratna’s 1997 Concept [1, 2]

Long before technology was officially integrated into player-led challenges, Weeraratna conceived the concept of the Player Referral system in 1997 while living in Darwin, Australia. [1, 2, 3]

• The Legal Analogy: As a lawyer, Weeraratna viewed the absolute, unchallengeable power of an on-field umpire as a violation of natural justice. He modeled his concept on legal jurisprudence, framing the Third Umpire as an appellate court where a dissatisfied player (the litigant) could appeal a lower court error.
• Documented Evidence: He first publicized the exact structural framework of the system—including limiting the number of unsuccessful reviews per innings—in a Letter to the Editor of The Australian newspaper on March 25, 1997. The concept was subsequently published across global cricket journals and sent to the Sri Lankan cricket board for consideration. [1, 3, 4, 5]

The ICC’s Adoption and Legal Stance

The ICC Cricket Committee formally adopted the core structure of the player referral model in 2006, tested it in 2008, and officially launched the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS/DRS) in November 2009. However, the governing body did not credit Weeraratna or any other single inventor for the system. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The legal battle escalated through formal correspondence and corporate pushback:

• The “No Awareness” Defense: Former ICC Head of Legal David Becker (2010) and current General Counsel Jonathan Hall (2023) maintained the official stance that the ICC was entirely unaware of Weeraratna’s published letters and articles. They asserted that DRS was the independent product of internal employees and commercial technology contractors.
• Doctrine of Constructive Notice: Weeraratna’s legal representatives, including the Sydney-based firm Carroll & O’Dea, have fiercely challenged the ICC’s position. They argue that because Weeraratna’s work was widely disseminated in prominent international press a decade prior, the ICC’s claim of ignorance ignores the legal doctrine of constructive notice and constitutes a major ethical oversight.
• Copyright Admissions: The ICC has previously conceded that it holds no registered global copyright or named author for the DRS, leaving the intellectual origin of the rules legally ambiguous. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Why It Is Termed the “Biggest Battle in Cricket History”

• Paradigm Shift in Global Officiating: Unlike minor technical revisions or the rain-dependent Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method, the Player Referral concept dismantled over a century of unchallengeable umpiring authority. It fundamentally rewrote the structural power dynamics of sports officiating and served as the direct conceptual blueprint for systems now used worldwide, including football’s VAR, tennis’s Hawk-Eye challenges, and rugby reviews.
• The Recognition Disparity: While patent holders and technology firms capture multi-million dollar contracts for supplying the physical hardware (cameras, microphones, ball-tracking software), the conceptual architect of the legal rule change has received no royalties or official title.
• Regional and Institutional Tension: The ongoing dispute has transformed from a private copyright claim into a broader diplomatic movement. Sports historians, South Asian cricket commentators, and legal groups in Sri Lanka continuously lobby the Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) board, South Asian sports ministries, and the ICC to officially recognize Weeraratna and potentially rename the framework the “Weeraratna Decision Review System” (WDRS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

If you are tracking the progress of this legal dispute, we can look into the specific intellectual property frameworks or remand routes through independent sports arbitration bodies currently being proposed by his legal teams. Would you like to explore that aspect? [1]

https://share.google/aimode/n7gjglK1giluDNrr6

Source: AI Overview