Connect with us

Opinion

Five Years on with garbage, myths and lies

Published

on

Sri Lanka – Singapore Free Trade Agreement

By Gomi Senadhira

This month the highly controversial Sri Lanka – Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA), which was signed in January 2018 and enforced in May 2018, completes five years in operation. Given the high level of concern among domestic stakeholders regarding the agreement. President Maithripala Sirisena appointed an independent committee of experts, in August 2018, to study the agreement and the committee handed over its report to the President in December 2018. The committee had identified a number of pitfalls in the agreement and President Maithripala Sirisena had directed that the agreement be amended as per the recommendations of the expert group. In May 2021, it was revealed that the National Negotiation Committee had reviewed the SLSFTA and identified 18 amendments to be made to the agreement. Hence, as the SLSFTA marks five years of implementation, it is appropriate for relevant government agencies to provide an overview of the significant trade and economic effects of the FTA during the period, and any efforts undertaken by the government to revise the articles in the agreement which are unfavourable to Sri Lanka. This is particularly important in trade policy because Sri Lanka is currently engaged in FTA negotiations with a number of other countries, including China, India, and Thailand. A careful analysis of the SLSFTA, at this stage, would help to avoid repeating similar mistakes in these negotiations as well. Furthermore, the way our trade negotiators and “experts” reacted to some of these public concerns on the agreement also reveals the limits of their expertise on trade agreements and negotiations, and their understanding of the commitments they had extended to Singapore! Some of their comments are so absurd that it appears that they do not even comprehend the very basics of trade negotiations!

One of the most controversial issues in the SLSFTA was the commitments undertaken by Sri Lanka to open up import and process waste/garbage from Singapore. I was the first to raise this issue in August 2018 (SL chosen as garbage dump by Singapore after China, etc. shut their doors, The Island 18th August 2018). Last year, in a study undertaken by Anushka Wijesinha, who was an advisor to the Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade, and Janaka Wijayasiri state, “At times, the concern morphed into undue fears and propelled misleading views and myths…Another concern that arose quite surprisingly was that the SLFTA – and the tariff liberalisation offered – would permit harmful products such as garbage, clinical waste, nuclear waste, chemical waste etc. to be imported to Sri Lanka. The argument by those individuals and groups that raised this issue was that since waste products are included in the TLP, such items can be dumped into the country under the agreement… To be clear, the reduction or elimination of tariffs does not grant automatic entry of a product into a country – all applicable domestic regulations and mechanisms would still apply, including any applicable import licensing requirements, standards, and other regulatory approvals. The SLSFTA does not take away Sri Lanka’s rights under International Environmental Protection Treaties to which Sri Lanka is a signatory and therefore, relevant environmental laws and regulations would apply to such imported products with no exception for those imports from Singapore under the SLSFTA.” (Sri Lanka – Singapore FTA Four Years On: Policy Context, Key Issues, and Future Prospects – August 2022)

When I exposed the commitments undertaken in the agreement to allow waste, particularly plastic waste, imports from Singapore it was not done based simply on tariff liberalisation. It was done after analysing the global trade of plastic waste, the challenges Singapore was facing in exporting plastic waste, Sri Lanka’s import of plastic waste, and Sri Lanka’s commitments in the agreement under the TLP, rules of origin, and services.

The Global situation

The developed countries lawfully or unlawfully export garbage as “recyclable waste” overseas for recycling. That is because recycling is a labour-intensive and dirty industry. For example, a PET bottle would have to be washed, its cap, and the label taken off before it can be recycled. So, it is a labour- intensive process. Very often large quantities of toxic or hazardous wastes also are mixed with “clean” waste. Then it also becomes a hazardous industry. During the cleaning process toxic waste is released into local environs and workers get exposed to them. So, developed countries prefer to do this “recycling” in developing countries. To do their dirty work these global garbage traders particularly target developing countries with corrupt officials and shady businessmen where import licensing requirements, standards, and other regulatory approvals can be bent and corrupt officials would facilitate the clearing of even toxic garbage containers without any examination. In these countries, the bulk of the imported garbage ends up in the local garbage dumps.

China was the world’s largest importer of garbage and imported almost 60% of the world’s plastic waste. However, there was a growing public outcry, over many years, against the import of “foreign garbage.” in general and import of plastic waste in particular. This intensified after the release of the documentary film “Plastic China” in 2016 depicting the lives of two families who make their living recycling plastic waste imported from developed countries. In 2017 China decided to ban imports of 24 types of rubbish and notified the WTO accordingly. “We found that large amounts of dirty wastes or even hazardous wastes are mixed in the solid waste that can be used as raw materials. This seriously polluted China’s environment. To protect China’s environmental interests and people’s health, we urgently adjust the imported solid wastes list, and forbid the import of solid wastes that are highly polluted. Protection of human health or safety; Protection of animal or plant life or health; Protection of the environment,” stated China’s WTO notification.

Normally, in international trade when the import of a product is banned in one country, it will be redirected to other countries. After the Chinese ban. Increased volumes of plastic waste started to move into other traditional importers of waste for reprocessing (Thailand, Vietnam, and other countries in the region) and these countries too started to restrict the imports of waste products. So, where will the world’s waste exports end up, if not in China or South East Asia? By late 2016, the Chinese plastic waste processing industry was looking for places in South Asia and Africa to relocate this billion-dollar industry.

Situation in Singapore

Singapore is one of the world’s largest, per capita, plastic waste generators. From 2012 to 2017 the total volume of plastic waste generated in Singapore averaged around 800 thousand tons per year. In 2013 Singapore exported over 90,000 tons of plastic waste. Out of it over 57,000 Tons went to China. After China’s ban on the import of plastic waste, Singapore’s exports fell to around 30, 000 tons by 2021. In Singapore, plastic waste is either exported or incinerated. Ash from incineration is shipped to a man-made island and that landfill is also fast filling up. Furthermore, the incineration of plastic waste even under controlled conditions leads to environmental degradation. Singapore is very keen on maintaining its air quality and incineration is not a preferred option. But recycling in Singapore is expensive. So, recycling companies in Singapore used to undertake that in Malaysia, China, or other countries in the region. After the Chinese ban exports to China have stopped totally and other importers also were contemplating import restrictions. Hence, it was no secret, when the SLSFTA was negotiated Singapore was exploring new overseas locations to establish recycling operations, or dumping grounds. In 2021 Singapore generated 982 thousand tons of plastic waste and only around six percent of the plastic waste generated was recycled. (See Table I)

The situation in Sri Lanka

When the SLSFTA was under negotiation Sri Lanka had already commenced importing plastic waste. The surge in imports between 2013 and 2017 shown in the Table II, clearly indicated the presence of a small but growing plastic waste “recycling” industry in Sri Lanka. My comments in 2018 was partly based on this analysis. (See Table II)

Though trade flows indicated a possible presence of global waste “recycling” mafia in Sri Lanka, I didn’t know, at that stage, garbage “recycling” or “resource recovery industries” had already commenced thriving operations within the BOI, under the Commercial Hub Regulation Act.

That was revealed only after the media exposure in 2019, of a huge waste dump inside the BOI. At that time, a representative from the “resource recovery industry” operated in the Katunayake FTZ, brazenly claimed at a press conference that this was the world’s “fastest-growing and most admired industry”. However, the investigation revealed that this clandestine waste dump inside the BOI contained toxic waste. Then came the discovery of over 200 stinking garbage containers in the Colombo port! Again, with toxic waste! These were discovered only because dirty fluids started to ooze out these smelly containers. It was reported that the environmental and customs officials even refused to open these containers as it was unsafe to do so. It was also reported that the garbage consignments moved from the port to the BOI were not physically checked by the Customs and other regulatory agencies, and these agencies did not conduct any entry processing or check on documents, due to BOI regulations! Though the Finance Minister promised the Parliament, in July 2019, that he would conduct a comprehensive investigation into the matter and would take legal action against the culprits nothing much had happened even after four years. It is also noteworthy that these garbage containers were discovered only after the collapse of Meethotamulla Garbage Dump in 2017. If Meethotamulla had not imploded, at least some of the waste may have ended up there.

Sri Lanka – Singapore FTA

The SLSFTA was negotiated at a time when the global crisis in the garbage trade was at its peak. So, how did Sri Lankan negotiators react to the crisis? Did they see it as a threat or an opportunity? Trade negotiators are expected to analyse trade statistics before making any commitment on any tariff line. Didn’t they know that Sri Lanka was already importing plastic waste? The representatives from the BOI were involved in the negotiations. Didn’t they know Sri Lanka had established these “resource recovery industries” within the BOI? How Singaporean negotiators approached this issue. Did they request any commitments from Sri Lanka in the area of import and processing of waste? Did we provide these commitments without any requests? And finally, didn’t they even know that Sri Lanka made these commitments?

When I warned that plastic and asbestos waste will be imported for processing and recycling, the Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade responded by stating “… in order for products manufactured in Singapore using non-originating raw materials (imported raw materials) to become eligible for Customs duty concessions under SLSFTA, origin criteria listed below should be complied with: I. Sufficient working or processing + comply with value addition of 35% of FOB or II. Sufficient working or processing + comply with CTH (change of tariff no at 4- digit level between the finished product and imported inputs) or… Sufficient working or processing + comply with Product Specific Rules”),” (“Garbage in, Garbage out’- Malik’s response,” The Island, October 9, 2018).

Unfortunately, our trade negotiators and advisers are not even aware that under the SLSFTA Rules of Origin, waste and scrap for recycling qualify as wholly obtained products, like plants … grown and harvested, or live animals born, raised and slaughtered in Singapore. The relevant sections are Article 4 k, l, and m, which state” … (k) used articles collected there fit only for the recovery of raw materials; (l) wastes and scrap resulting from manufacturing operations conducted there; (m) waste and scrap derived from used goods collected in the exporting Party, provided that those goods are fit only for the recovery of raw materials.“ Under these sub- articles plastic waste, asbestos waste and similar products, can be imported for the recovery of raw materials by the “resource recovery industry” which had a highly lucrative operation in the BOI zones when the agreement was signed.

The agreement clearly categorises waste collected in Singapore as a wholly obtained product under Article 4, the Ministry of DS& IT claimed waste cannot be imported under Article 5. Didn’t our International Trade Ministry and other trade “experts” understand waste collected in Singapore is covered under Article 4 and hence the limitations in Article 5 do not apply? Or was it a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the public?

Then there are a few specific rules of origin that would facilitate the dumping of dangerous products in Sri Lanka. For example, crocidolite asbestos (HS 6812) also known as blue asbestos, is considered the most hazardous type of asbestos. Sri Lanka prohibited the use of crocidolite asbestos in 1987. Singapore banned the use of all types of Asbestos in 1989. However, a significant amount of the material remains in the buildings and elsewhere in Singapore and there are strict laws governing the demolishing and removal of these materials. Shockingly this item is not only included in Sri Lanka’s TLP but our negotiators have spent time and money on formulating very simple specific rules of origin to facilitate its imports. If a product containing Crocidolite, simply changes its tariff subheading then it qualifies as a product of Singaporean origin.

Then in the Services Chapter Sri Lanka has undertaken a specific commitment on Waste Disposal Services which is reproduced below (see Table 3):

The CPC 9402 refers to “refuse collection and disposal services’ and it includes collection services of garbage, trash, rubbish and waste, whether from households or from industrial and commercial establishments, transport services and disposal services by incineration or by other means. The use of “**” against the CPC code indicates that the specific commitment for that code shall not extend to the total range of services covered under that code. Sri Lanka’s commitment clearly limits its scope to waste collected from industrial establishments not run by the Government, but no other areas are excluded.

Under these commitments, services can be provided through four modes of supply. For “Waste Disposal Services” Sri Lanka has opened up only two modes of supply, namely, Mode 2) Consumption abroad and Mode 3) Commercial presence. The term “None” under this commitment means that the country is committing itself to provide full liberalization without any limitations on market access or national treatment for the service sector and modes of supply for which commitments are written.

By opening up Mode 2 without any restrictions, Sri Lanka permits the other party to the agreement to process its solid waste in Sri Lanka. If the intention of Sri Lankan negotiators, as the government claims, was to limit this to waste collected in Sri Lanka, then mode 2 should have been left unbound. By opening up of Mode 3 Sri Lanka has allowed Singaporean Waste Disposal Services to establish a subsidiary in Sri Lanka, subject to regulations of the Central Environmental Authority of Sri Lanka. Therefore, under this commitment waste can be imported from Singapore not only to recover raw materials but also to dispose of.

Before the SLSFTA entered into force in May 2018, if a Singaporean, Chinese or any other national wanted to recycle imported waste in Sri Lanka, it was possible to do so under BOI regulations. After May 2018, any Singaporean company can establish refuse disposal services in Sri Lanka, under the commitments undertaken by Sri Lanka in the services chapter of the SLSFTA, to recycle and/or process waste!

After I raised this issue it was widely discussed. I believe the Presidential Commission also recommended that the articles which permit waste import and recycling should be amended. My article “SL chosen as garbage dump by Singapore after China etc. shut their doors,” published in the Island in 2018, was tabled in the parliament by Shehan Semasinghe. Later, in April 2022, he became the Minister of Trade and since September 2022 he is the Minister of State for Finance. In spite of all that the government had not taken any action to protect Sri Lanka from becoming a garbage dump for developed countries other than calling my claim, “… a despicable attempt … to deceive the public” and in turn releasing few press releases with incorrect information to mislead the public. Even when the government imposed a ban on imports of hundreds of products, waste items like plastic waste were not included in that list and every year Sri Lanka continues to import thousands of tons of plastic waste!

In 2019, the Philippines, in a major diplomatic row with Canada, reshipped 2,400 tonnes of Canadian toxic waste which was imported labelled as plastic waste for recycling. Other countries in the region also had taken similar action. But we in Sri Lanka are not like that. Last year alone Sri Lanka imported over 6000 tons of plastic waste! Most of it came from China, a country that banned the import of plastic waste to protect environmental interests and people’s health and safety.

(The writer can be contacted via senadhiragomi@gmail.com.)



Opinion

Remembering Douglas Devananda on New Year’s Day 2026

Published

on

Douglas in Geneva

I have no intention of even implicitly commenting on the legality of the ongoing incarceration of Douglas Devananda.

I’ve no legal background, and that’s because having been selected for the Law faculty at the University of Colombo on the basis of my A level results, I opted to study Political Science instead. I did so because I had an acute sense of the asymmetry between the law and justice and had developed a growing compulsion on issues of ethics—issues of right and wrong, good and evil.

However, as someone who has had a book published in the UK on political ethics, I have no compunction is saying that as a country, as a society, there has to be a better way than this.

It is morally and ethically wrong, indeed a travesty, that Douglas, a wounded hero of the anti-LTTE war, should spend New Year 2026 in the dreaded Mahara prison.

Douglas should be honoured as a rare example of a young man, who having quite understandably taken up arms to fight against Sinhala racism and for the Tamil people, decided while still a young man to opt to fight on the side of the democratic Sri Lankan state and to campaign for devolution for the North and East within the framework of a united Sri Lanka and its Constitution.

Douglas was an admired young leader of the PLA, the military wing of the Marxist EPRLF when he began to be known.

Nothing is more ironic than the historical fact that in July 1983 he survived the horrifying Welikada prison massacres, during which Sinhala prisoners, instigated and incentivized from outside (Gonawela Sunil is a name that transpired), slaughtered Tamil prisoners and gauged out their eyes.

Having escaped from jail in Batticaloa, Douglas came back to Sri Lanka in 1989, having had a change of heart after hundreds of youngsters belonging to the EPRLF, PLOT, and TELO had been massacred from 1986 onwards by the hardcore separatist, totalitarian Tigers. He was welcomed by President Premadasa and Minister Ranjan Wijeratne who took him and his ‘boys’ under their wing. There are photos of Douglas in shorts and carrying an automatic weapon, accompanying Ranjan Wijeratne and the Sri Lankan armed forces after the liberation of the islands off Jaffna from the Tiger grip.

It is Douglas who kept those vital islands safe, together with the Navy, throughout the war.

Douglas stayed with the democratic Sri Lankan state, remaining loyal to the elected president of the day, without ever turning on his or her predecessor. He probably still wears, as he did for decades, the fountain pen that President Premadasa gifted him.

During the LTTE’s offensive on Jaffna after the fall of Elephant Pass, the mass base built up by Douglas which gave the EPDP many municipal seats, helped keep Jaffna itself safe, with more Tamil civilians fleeing into Jaffna than out of it. I recall President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga giving him a satellite phone. Army Chief Lionel Balagalle gave him a pair of mini-Uzis for his safety.

Douglas was no paramilitary leader, pure and simple. His public speech on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, delivered without a teleprompter, is an excellent roadmap for the graduated implementation of the 13th amendment and the attainment of maximum devolution within a unitary state.

Like Chandrika, Douglas has had his sight severely impaired by the LTTE. As a Minister he had visited Tamil detainees imprisoned in wartime, and been set upon by a group of LTTE prisoners who had planned for his visit, concealing sharpened handles of steel buckets in the ceiling, and slammed the pointed metal through his skull. Douglas still needs repeated daily medication for his eyes which were miraculously saved by the Sri Lankan surgeons who repaired his skull, but at a subsequent stage, he was also treated by surgeons overseas.

No Sri Lankan, Sinhala or Tamil, civilian politician or military brass, has survived as many attempted assassinations by the Tigers as has Douglas. I believe the count is eleven. There’s a video somewhere of a suicide bomber blasting herself in his office, yards away from him.

Under no previous Sri Lankan administration since the early 1980s has Douglas found himself behind bars. He has served and/or supported seven democratic Presidents: Premadasa, Wijetunga, Chandrika, Mahinda, Sirisena, Gotabaya and Wickremesinghe. He has been a Minister over decades and a parliamentarian for longer.

He was a firm frontline ally of the Sri Lankan state and its armed forces during the worst challenge the country faced from the worst enemy it had since Independence.

During my tenure as Sri Lanka’s ambassador/Permanent representative to the UN Geneva, Douglas Devananda came from Colombo to defend Sri Lanka in discussions with high level UN officials including UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay. This was in April 23, mere weeks before the decisive battle of the UN HRC Special session on Sri Lanka which we won handsomely. The media release on his visit reads as follows:

A high-level delegation led by the Hon. Minister Douglas Devananda, Minister of Social Services and Social Welfare, which also included the Hon. Rishad Bathiudeen, Minister of Resettlement and Disaster Relief Services, H.E. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Ambassador/ Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, and Mr. Yasantha Kodagoda, Deputy Solicitor General, Attorney General’s Department, represented Sri Lanka at the Durban Review Conference.

“Organized by the United Nations, the Durban Review Conference provides an opportunity to assess and accelerate progress on implementation of measures adopted at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, including assessment of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. On the opening day of this conference, Hon. Douglas Devananda made a statement behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka.

“On the sidelines of the Durban Review Conference which is being held from 20th to 24th of April 2009, the Sri Lankan delegation met with senior UN officials, and a number of dignitaries from diverse countries and updated them on the current situation in Sri Lanka against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s fight against separatism and terrorism.

Hon. Devananda and Hon. Bathiudeen, along with the rest of the delegation, held meetings with Ms. Navanethem Pillai, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (and a former Prime Minister of Portugal) and Mr. Anders Johnsson, Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.’

(https://live.lankamission.org/index.php/human-rights/676-minister-devananda-meets-un-high-commissioners-for-human-rights-and-refugees-2.html)

In contemporary world history, a leader from a minority community who defends the unity of his country against a separatist terrorist force deriving from that minority is hailed as a hero. A leader who takes the side of the democratic state, arms in hand, against a totalitarian fascistic foe, is hailed as a hero. Evidently, not so in current-day Sri Lanka.

[Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s former Ambassador to the UN Geneva; France, Spain, Portugal and UNESCO; and the Russian Federation, was a Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council and Chairman, ILO.]

by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka  ✍️

Continue Reading

Opinion

A national post-cyclone reflection period? – II

Published

on

A post-disaster school clean-up. (File photo courtesy Sri Lanka Red Cross)

A call to transform schools from shelters of safety into sanctuaries of solidarity

(Part I of this article appeared on 10 Dec. 2025— https://island.lk/a-national-post-cyclone-reflection-period/)

What Could NPCRP Look Like in School?

In the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, Sri Lankan schools can play a crucial role in helping children process their experiences, rebuild their sense of safety, and find meaning in collective healing. To achieve this, schools can employ a period of at least two or three weeks of continuous reflection and creative processing, a rich set of classroom, school-wide, and community-level activities, tailored to the needs of students in the post-disaster landscape.

Classroom Level: Beyond morning assemblies and daily curricular learning, classrooms can engage in reflection-based group projects that deepen understanding and reconstruct a sense of narrative around the disaster. Students may create timelines of the cyclone, maps of affected areas, and “hero stories” honoring rescuers, first responders, volunteers, teachers, parents, and neighbours. They can also explore environmental dimensions by studying land management, erosion, and deforestation—connecting personal trauma with broader ecological lessons. Using ordinary mobile phones, groups may produce mini documentaries capturing their community’s stories, strengthening both empathy and agency.

One powerful approach could be to dedicate the first period of each school day to guided sharing circles facilitated by teachers. During these sessions, students can explore gentle prompts such as: What did I experience? What did I witness? What am I feeling now—and why? What do I need to feel safe? How can I help my family or community? What have I or haven’t I done that would have contributed to natural disasters? What am I or am I not doing to contribute to environmental preservation? What more could I or couldn’t I do to avoid further ecological harm? Children may express themselves through spoken reflection, creative writing, drawing, painting, journaling, storytelling, role-play, poetry, song, or even handicrafts made from safely cleaned, recycled flood debris.

School Level: At the school level, exhibitions of student expressions, multi-faith remembrance ceremonies, guest talks by mental-health professionals, environmental awareness workshops, tree-planting memorials, disaster drills, and student-led volunteer clubs can bring the whole school community together in collective learning and restoration. Peer-support groups and simple grounding exercises can help students process emotions gently and safely. Collaborative murals and wall paintings portraying hope and resilience can serve as both an emotional outlet and a communal act of rebuilding.

Community Level: Beyond the school walls, community-based initiatives—such as joint parent-student rebuilding projects, clean-up campaigns, home-visit systems for affected families, partnerships with clergy and village leaders, parental sharing groups, and collaborations with NGOs for counselling and disaster training—help weave stronger bonds between families, educators, and local institutions.

Throughout the NPCRP process, teachers and parents can play an essential psychosocial role by observing children with quiet attentiveness. Signs such as withdrawal, silence, unusual aggression, disturbed sleep routines, anxiety triggered by rain or thunder, sudden academic decline, or persistent sadness may indicate deeper distress. Those showing significant symptoms can be gently referred to school counsellors, psychosocial officers, or local mental-health teams for additional support. Early identification can be life-changing, especially for children who may otherwise suffer in silence.

After the NPCRP period, schools might organize a simple but meaningful internal exhibition showcasing student artwork, posters on resilience and disaster preparedness, documentary videos, and a “wall of gratitude” dedicated to rescue workers and volunteers. A remembrance corner honoring victims and survivors can provide a quiet space for communal reflection. Parents, guardians, religious leaders, and community members may be invited to witness the strength and vulnerability of their young people and to reaffirm a shared commitment to rebuilding lives and landscapes.

The reflection period may culminate in a closing ceremony of remembrance and resolve—an inclusive event that reflects Sri Lanka’s multicultural and multi-religious identity. The program could include a moment of silence, the lighting of oil lamps or candles, blessings from clergy of different faith traditions, and the felicitation of survivors and volunteer responders. Schools may also unveil a small, simple memorial—perhaps a stone, a tree, or a bench—created collaboratively by students, parents, and teachers, bearing a message such as: “From suffering, we rise — Cyclone Ditwah, 2025.” Even the simplest symbol can become a powerful reminder of shared endurance and collective hope.

Finally, schools could document this entire journey by gathering student photographs, stories, artwork, and personal reflections into a printed booklet or digital archive. Such a record would serve not only as a testimony of what the children endured, but also as a chronicle of resilience, solidarity, and renewal, something future generations can look back on as they continue the work of building a safer, more compassionate, and more environmentally conscious Sri Lanka.

Why Does NPCRP Matter?

Creating space for reflection and healing after Cyclone Ditwah should not be an optional exercise, but a national imperative. Emotional healing is essential because children recover best when they are encouraged to express what they have lived through; silence, on the other hand, often deepens fear, while shared storytelling strengthens resilience. This process, when adhered to within an established framework such as the Canadian sharing model or Jesuit spiritual conversation, is therefore therapeutic, nurturing respect and community-building through active listening and intentional speaking. As young people hear one another’s experiences, they develop empathy, and empathy in turn strengthens social cohesion—the foundation of a healthy democracy. Psychosocial activities that students engaged in during this period further facilitate opportunities to identify and support those students who show early signs of distress, while transforming schools into nurturing spaces that form whole persons, not just exam-takers.

Crucially, this period allows schools to integrate values that often remain outside the syllabus—emotional intelligence, ecological responsibility, national solidarity, and ethical reflection—contributing to strengthening national identity, as young people from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and social backgrounds discover a common narrative of suffering and survival. Also, fostering an understanding of environmental responsibility encourages sustainable behaviors that benefit the nation’s ecosystems for decades to come. Ultimately, these efforts strengthen the triangle of school–home–community relationships, building trust networks that not only support healing now but fortify the Sri Lankan nation against the uncertainties of the future. In that light, the cyclone, devastating as it was, offers a real-world context through which these values can be meaningfully taught and internalized.

Just as early psychosocial support leads to healthier long-term mental health outcomes, preventing deep-seated trauma from taking root, the long-term benefits of reflection extend well beyond the current disaster. Sri Lanka’s increasing vulnerability to monsoons and cyclones underscores the need to prepare the next generation for future disasters; children who learn to respond proactively, intelligently, and compassionately today will grow into adults who can lead communities safely through tomorrow’s crises. Children who are given tools to process trauma today will mature into resilient, compassionate, and confident adults capable of leadership in difficult times. A culture of solidarity can begin to take root when young people learn to care for “the other”, helping to soften and heal the country’s longstanding divisions. Improved disaster preparedness becomes a natural by-product of an educated and emotionally informed younger generation, reducing future loss of life and enhancing community responsiveness.

Conclusion

Cyclone Ditwah has forced Sri Lanka into a moment of profound reckoning—one that goes beyond the damaged infrastructure and broken landscapes. It has confronted us with the emotional and moral responsibility we hold toward our children, who have witnessed, endured, and responded to this disaster in countless ways. As the nation embarks on the long road to recovery, the reopening of schools becomes more than a logistical necessity; it becomes a national act of renewal, a declaration that our commitment to healing is as strong as our commitment to rebuilding.

If we are courageous enough to embrace this moment, schools can become powerful spaces of transformation. Not only can they restore stability and routine, but they should be the first places to cultivate empathy, resilience, ecological responsibility, and a shared sense of belonging, the qualities that Sri Lanka urgently needs as it confronts both old and emerging challenges. By creating structured opportunities for reflection, dialogue, creativity, and community engagement, we ensure that our children do not merely “move on” but move forward with understanding, resilience, educated solidarity, and purpose.

To that end, if the experiences carried by Sri Lankan children today are met with guided reflection and compassionate mentorship at school, they can become the seeds of a more humane and united nation. But if ignored, suppressed, or treated with less urgency and priority, they risk hardening into private wounds that isolate rather than connect. This is why the Ministry of Education’s choices in the coming weeks matter so profoundly. Like NPCRP, an intentional, well-structured reflective period within schools is not a delay in learning; it is learning in its highest form. It is the education that acknowledges life, loss, dignity, and responsibility, the kind of education that prepares children not only for examinations but for citizenship. Reopening schools without systematically addressing the emotional and moral dimensions of this tragedy, therefore, would be a missed opportunity

Hence, let us allow this disaster to teach us something enduring: that Sri Lanka rises strongest not when it focuses solely on rebuilding walls and bridges, but when it rebuilds its people, beginning with the youngest among us. Let us empower children to speak, share, create, question, and hope. Let us help them connect their experiences to a greater moral and ecological awareness. Let us show them that solidarity is not a distant ideal but a lived reality, learned through compassion and strengthened through community.

In the months and years to come, a new story will be told about how Sri Lanka responded to Cyclone Ditwah. Let that story be one of unity, vision, and courage. Let it be said that we refused to let our children carry their fears alone. Let it be remembered that our schools became sanctuaries of healing and hubs of civic renewal. And let it be known that from the grief of 2025 emerged a generation—educated, empathetic, and resilient—capable of guiding Sri Lanka toward a more just, prepared, and environmentally conscious future. As the legendary image of the Phoenix reminds us, from mud, we rise, and from learning, we (re)build the Sri Lanka she was always meant to be. (Concluded)

Dr. Rashmi M. Fernando, S.J., is a Jesuit priest, educator, and special assistant to the provost at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA.

by Dr. Rashmi M. Fernando, S.J. ✍️

Continue Reading

Opinion

Lakshman Balasuriya – Not just my boss but a father and a brother

Published

on

Lakshman Balasuriya

It is with profound sadness that we received the shocking news of untimely passing of our dear leader Lakshman Balasuriya.

I first met Lakshman Balasuriya in 1988 while working at John Keells, which had been awarded an IT contract to computerise Senkadagala Finance. Thereafter, in 1992, I joined the E. W. Balasuriya Group of Companies and Senkadagala Finance when the organisation decided to bring its computerisation in-house.

Lakshman Balasuriya obtained his BSc from the University of London and his MSc from the University of Lancaster. He was not only intellectually brilliant, but also a highly practical and pragmatic individual, often sitting beside me to share instructions and ideas, which I would then translate directly into the software through code.

My first major assignment was to computerise the printing press. At the time, the systems in place were outdated, and modernisation was a challenging task. However, with the guidance, strong support, and decisive leadership of our boss, we were able to successfully transform the printing press into a modern, state-of-the-art operation.

He was a farsighted visionary who understood the value and impact of information technology well ahead of his time. He possessed a deep knowledge of the subject, which was rare during those early years. For instance, in the 1990s, Balasuriya engaged a Canadian consultant to conduct a cybersecurity audit—an extraordinary initiative at a time when cybersecurity was scarcely spoken of and far from mainstream.

During that period, Senkadagala Finance’s head office was based in Kandy, with no branch network. When the decision was made to open the first branch in Colombo, our IT team faced the challenge of adapting the software to support branch operations. It was him who proposed the innovative idea of creating logical branches—a concept well ahead of its time in IT thinking. This simple yet powerful idea enabled the company to expand rapidly, allowing branches to be added seamlessly to the system. Today, after many upgrades and continuous modernisation, Senkadagala Finance operates over 400 locations across the country with real-time online connectivity—a testament to his original vision.

In September 2013, we faced a critical challenge with a key system that required the development of an entirely new solution. A proof of concept was prepared and reviewed by Lakshman Balasuriya, who gave the green light to proceed. During the development phase, he remained deeply involved, offering ideas, insights, and constructive feedback. Within just four months, the system was successfully developed and went live—another example of his hands-on leadership and unwavering support for innovation.

These are only a few examples among many of the IT initiatives that were encouraged, supported, and championed by him. Information technology has played a pivotal role in the growth and success of the E. W. Balasuriya Group of Companies, including Senkadagala Finance PLC, and much of that credit goes to his foresight, trust, and leadership.

On a deeply personal note, I was not only a witness to, but also a recipient of, the kindness, humility, and humanity of Lakshman Balasuriya. There were occasions when I lost my temper and made unreasonable demands, yet he always responded with firmness tempered by gentleness. He never lost his own composure, nor did he ever harbour grudges. He had the rare ability to recognise people’s shortcomings and genuinely tried to guide them toward self-improvement.

He was not merely our boss. To many of us, he was like a father and a brother.

I will miss him immensely. His passing has left a void that can never be filled. Of all the people I have known in my life, Mr. Lakshman Balasuriya stands apart as one of the finest human beings.

He leaves behind his beloved wife, Janine, his children Amanthi and Keshav, and the four grandchildren.

May he rest in eternal peace!

Timothy De Silva

(Information Systems Officer at Senkadagala Finance.)

Continue Reading

Trending