Opinion
Five Years on with garbage, myths and lies
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
Maha Jana Handa at Nugegoda, cyclone destruction, and contenders positioning for power in post-NPP Sri Lanka – I
The Joint Opposition rally dubbed the ‘Maha Jana Handa’ (Vox Populi/ Voice of the People) held at the Ananda Samarakoon Open Air Theatre, Nugegoda on 21 November, 2025 has suddenly acquired a growing potential to be remembered as a significant turning point in post-civil conflict Sri Lankan politics, in the wake of the meteorological catastrophe caused by the calamitous Ditwah cyclonic storm that devastated the whole country from north to south and east to west on an unprecedented scale. But the strength of this prospect depends on the collective coordinated success of the future public awareness raising rallies, promised by the participating opposition parties, against the incumbent JVP-led NPP government. They are set to expose what they perceive as the government’s utterly inexperienced and unexpectedly authoritarian stand on certain vitally important issues including the country’s national security and independence, political and economic stability, and the Lankan state’s unitary status. The government is also alleged to be moving towards establishing a form of old-fashioned single party Marxist dictatorship in place of the firmly established system of governance based on parliamentary democracy, which was almost toppled by the adventitious Aragalaya protest of 2022 but saved by the timely intervention of some patriotic elements.
The minefield of policy making that the government must negotiate is strewn with issues including, among others: the seven or so recent agreements or MOUs (?) secretly signed with India; the unresolved controversy over the allegedly illegal clearance of some 323 containers (with unknown goods) without mandatory Customs inspection, from the Colombo Port; the Prime Minister’s arbitrary, apparently ill-considered and hasty education reforms without proper parliamentary discussion; the proposed culturally sensitive lgbtqia+ legislation non-issue (it is a non-issue for Sri Lanka, given its dominant culture); the so-called IMF debt trap; dealing with the unfair, virtually unilateral UNHRC resolutions against Sri Lanka; the inexplicably submissive surrender of the control of the profit-making Colombo Dockyard PLC to India; some government personal assets declarations that have raised many eyebrows, and the government’s handling of anti-narcotic and anti-corruption operations. The opposition politicians relentlessly criticise the ruling JVP/NPP’s failure to come out clean on these matters. But they themselves are not likely to be on an easy wicket if challenged to reveal their own positions regarding the above-mentioned issues.
In addition to those problems, the much more formidable challenge of unsolicited foreign-power interference in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs, in the guise of friendly intervention, remains an unavoidable circumstance that we are required to survive in the geostrategically sensitive region where Sri Lanka is located. Having been active right from the departure of the British colonialists in 1948, the foreign interference menace intensified after the successful ending of armed separatist terrorism in 2009. Such external interferences are locally assisted by latent domestic communal disharmony as well as real political factionalism, both of which are normal in any democratic country.
The war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the leader of the SLFP-led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), was made to suffer a largely unexpected electoral defeat in 2015 through a foreign-engineered regime change operation that tacitly favoured his key rival, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. Mahinda was betrayed by his most trusted lieutenant Maithripala Sirisena.
The SLFP, a more middle of the way socialist-leaning rival political party, was formed in September 1951—five years after the birth of the UNP—and was elected to power in 1956, ending a near decade under the rather West-friendly latter party. It was deemed to be a ‘revolution’ that started an era of ‘transition’ (from elitist to common citizen rule). From nominal independence in 1948, governing power has to date alternated between these two parties or alliances led by them, except for the last electoral year, 2024. Though incumbent Executive President Anura Kumara Dissanayake may be said to have made history in this sense, the fact remains that he was barely able to scrape just 43% of the popular vote as the head of a newly formed, JVP-led NPP. Dissanayake was sworn in as President in September 2024. But his less than convincing electoral approval triggered a massive victory for the NPP at the parliamentary election that followed in November, giving him a parliament with 159 members, which is unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s electoral history.
In my opinion, there are two main reasons for this outcome. One is that the average Sri Lankan voters trust democracy. Since the president elect is accepted as having won the favour of the majority of the pan-Sri Lankan electorate, the general public choose to forget about their personal party affiliations and tend to vote for the parliamentary candidates from the party of the elected president. This is particularly true of the majority Sinhalese Buddhist community represented by the two mainstream, non-communal national parties, the UNP and the SLFP. The brittle foundation of that victory is not likely to sustain a strong enough administration that is capable of introducing the nebulous ‘system change’ that they have promised in their manifesto, while it is becoming clear that the general performance of the government seems to be falling far short of the real public expectations, which are not identical with the unconscionable demands made by the few separatist elements among the peaceful Tamil diaspora in the West, to whom the JVP/NPP alliance seems to owe its significantly qualified electoral success in 2024.
The Maha Jana Handa reminded me of the long Janabalaya Protest March from Kandy to Colombo where it ended in a mass rally on September 5, 2018. That hugely successful event was organised by the youth wing of the SLPP led by Namal Rajapaksa, who was an Opposition MP during the Yahapalanaya. He has played the same role just as efficiently on the most recent occasion, too. At the end of his address during the Maha Jana Handa, he declared his determination to bring down the malfunctioning JVP/NPP government at the earliest instance possible. Probably, he missed Ranil’s protege Harin Fernando’s speech that came earlier. This was because Namal Rajapaksa joined the rally midway. Harin had brought a message from his mentor Ranil to be read out to the rally audience. But he said he didn’t want to do so after all, saying that it was not suitable for that moment. Anyway, during his speech, Harin said emphatically that the era of heirs apparent or crown princes was gone for good. People knew that he was alluding to Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa (sons of former Presidents hopeful of succeeding Anura Kumara Dissanayake). Harin was seen biting his tongue or sticking it out a little as he was preparing to leave the stage at the end of his address. Was he regretting what he had just said or was he cocking a snook at what, he was sure, was Namal’s ambition that would be revealed in his speech, the rally having been organised by the Pohottuwa or the SLPP? (To be continued)
by Rohana R. Wasala
Opinion
Lessons that should be learnt from Ditwah
Cyclonic storm Ditwah, named as such by Yemen referring to Detwah lagoon in one of its islands, caused severe devastation in Sri Lanka though it was categorised a weak tropical cyclone. When it hit on Thursday 27th November, the main problem was the unprecedented rain, some areas experiencing over 500 millimetres in 24 hours. Fortunately, wind speeds were not high reaching a maximum of only 45 mph, the sort of wind speed not infrequently encountered in the UK. In contrast, Hurricane Melissa, a category 5 storm which struck Jamaica, just a month ago, had winds reaching 185 mph! Though it was the most powerful storm to hit Jamaica ever, causing extensive damage across the island due to strong winds with added torrential rainfall causing landslides, the death toll was only 54 with further 15 people reported missing. It affected Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Haiti as well, with a further 48 deaths. Jamaicans were forewarned and were well prepared. It looks as if this did not happen in Sri Lanka. Though politicians are fighting over this aspect, despite it being not the priority, it is never too early to learn lessons. My comments that follow should not, in any way, detract from the very positive actions the government has taken and continues to do so, as well as the heroic efforts of volunteers putting their own lives at risk.
I did not realise the enormity till Friday (28) evening, when Ven. Teldeniyaye Amitha, who conducts a fortnightly Mindfulness meditation session over Zoom, told the participants that we should instead do Kindness meditation in view of the catastrophic situation in Sri Lanka. As soon as the session was over, I switched on to YouTube and was shocked by the images of destruction seen. When I contacted a good friend of mine in Kandy on Saturday 29th afternoon, what he told me made me realise that there were no warnings at all.
This lack of warning was not due to information being not available, I learned later. In fact, the DG of Meteorology has warned of an impending catastrophe when inclement weather was discussed on “Big Focus” programme broadcast over Derana TV on 12th November, in the presence of the DG of the Disaster Management Centre (DMC). It also further transpires that BBC World Service, the day before, accurately predicted that Cyclone Ditwah will cause heavy rainfall, up to 500mm, in Sri Lanka. Thus, there is no doubt that the government failed in its duty of adequate warning and taking action to minimise damage. Perhaps, it may have something to do with their labelling the DMC a ‘White Elephant’ in the past and threatening to dismantle it. Meteorological department’s lack of latest radar equipment is no excuse as information could be obtained from many sources. Some scientists whose sympathies are with the governing party seem to pronounce that weather predictions are unreliable. This may be so in the long term but, surely, BBC’s prediction the previous day, as well as the regular warnings sent by the Meteorological Service of India, should have been taken seriously. It is a great shame that the government does not seem prepared to admit that it made a mistake. Without that lessons cannot be learned!
It was disgusting to see a lady MP, who seems to be a loose cannon, having the audacity in parliament to blame Derana TV for broadcasting that programme! If true, it is more worrying that an opposition MP has stated in parliament that the Secretary of Defence has threatened the DG of Meteorology. In the latest turn of events, Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe has stated that the opposition should be sued for being silent on the weather warning! Does he not realise that by such loose talk he is helping the government to dig its own grave!
The other important question is whether the opening of sluice gates of reservoirs contributed to death and destruction. Some experts opine that had sluice gates been opened in advance to accommodate the expected torrential downpour, a significant amount of destruction and some deaths could have been avoided. This needs careful study, not to apportion blame, but to make sure that any future recurrences could be prevented. Considering the global changes in weather experienced, whatever the reason may be, we need to be prepared for this type of eventuality.
At a time of an unprecedented national emergency when cooperation of all was needed, the mudslinging on social media, both by supporters and opponents of the government, was despicable. There seems to be some truth to the accusations that the governing party goons hindered attempts by the opposition to help the affected, to claim credit for themselves! Do they think people in distress care whether ‘red stars’ are attached to aid packets?
The fact that the government seems incapable of taking criticism was made obvious by the actions of the Deputy Minister of Public Security. Though his Minister and the President subsequently denied that emergency powers would be used to suppress dissent,Watagala’s despicable behaviour, as well stated in the editorial “Emergency turns Jekyll into Hyde” (The Island, 5 December), deserves condemnation. There is a well justified suspicion that the Police are behaving as a paw of the ruling party, as two police officers with shadows over them were, plucked out of retirement, unashamedly appointed to two key positions as a reward for their political campaigning.
Perhaps, the comments made by Jaffna district MP, Dr Archchuna should make the government rethink, leave the past behind and act rationally. He told parliament that he had been rescued by Sinhala war heroes and sheltered in a Navy camp, criticising the government for insulting the armed forces. Considering the yeoman’s service rendered by the tri forces during this catastrophe, it is high time the governing party realised that service personnel are required at other times too, not only during war, and that they deserve the gratitude and the respect of the nation for saving us from terrorism too.
The best way to honour those who died during the recent disasters is by learning lessons from this tragedy so that we would be better equipped for any future emergencies. This could be done only if the government is prepared to eat humble pie and admit that mistakes were made. Do sincerely hope that they are big enough, and humble too, to do so!
By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Opinion
A 6th Year Accolade: The eternal opulence of my fair lady
The 6th of December marked the sixth solar cycle since my adored life partner, Dr Malwattage Josephine Sarojini Perera (née Peeris), left this mortal world. Six years have elapsed; a period characterised by a searingly perpetual heartache. However, her inspiring influence is not diminished by the passage of time, and her memory has become more burnished and sublimely potent. It has transformed from a painful void into a sparkling, indestructible legacy that fortifies the hearts of all who were privileged to share her path.
The abyss left by her departure is multitudinous for all of us, including those who benefited from her professional dedication. Nevertheless, the consciousness of her magnificent journey, a spectacular 72 years, 2 months, and 11 days on this planet Earth, remains as a seamless record of a unique chronicle. It was the radiance of her inner spirit that rendered her truly peerless. She epitomised the beautiful words of one of my favourite Sri Lankan lady singers, “Beauty is how you feel inside; you glow from within.” Sarojini was a woman of monumental dignity and benevolence, whose serene, consistent luminosity brought a radiance into every room she entered. Her smile was a glorious spectacle of her lovely inner human nature; a pure expression of her soul’s integrity. That spectacularly radiant smile epitomised the immortal words of the beautiful song by Nat King Cole, “Smile though your heart is aching, smile even though it is breaking, when there are clouds in the sky, you will get by.“
Throughout her tenure on earth, she embodied the highest form of selfless service, dedicating her energies wholly to our family unit, her relatives, and all her acquaintances. She served her patients with an unreserved commitment, functioning as the very milieu of abiding reassurance for them. Her chosen field in medicine was one of profound challenges and pressing needs. She primarily worked ever so tirelessly with individuals afflicted and affected by Sexually transmitted Diseases, HIV and AIDS. They were a cohort frequently marginalised, ostracised, and terribly wounded by societal judgment. Yet, this extraordinary woman approached her work with limitless compassion and an intrinsic, deep-seated sense of humanitarian duty. She held an irrefutable conviction that beyond the stark finality of any medical diagnosis, there was a human being whose entitlement to honour, consideration, respect and warmth was absolute.
Sophocles wisely said: “One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.” Sarojini’s approach to life was built upon this very word ‘love’ as its foundation. She remained steadfastly true to her ethical moorings, never wavering in her commitment to assuage suffering and nurture genuine understanding. Her patients were not mere cases receiving clinical attention; they were embraced into a circle of care that extended beyond the confines of the clinic. Sarojini’s gentle disposition and empathetic spirit captivated all those who came seeking relief and comfort in her ministrations.
She extended not only medical expertise but also essential emotional ballast, serving as a critical beacon of optimism in times of the most profound darkness and utter despair. Her engagement was holistic; she saw the complete person, not just the disease. The philosopher Kahlil Gibran expressed a sentiment that describes the core values of her life: “You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.” Her affection emanated as a gentle, regenerative anodyne, calming the distressed spirits of those sighing in overwhelming heartache. Her bequest in this vital domain of medicine is not merely a record of treatments, but a register of hearts healed and spirits uplifted by unconditional acceptance and love.
Beyond her professional life, Sarojini was the gravitational centre of our existence; a loving spouse, an undaunted mother, and a precious confidante. The habitat and the canvas of love we built together were a haven of affection and composure, a place where joy thrived, and the air was often vibrant with shared merriment. She cultivated her family with boundless tenderness, sowing and nurturing the essential precepts of benevolence, rectitude, and resilience within us. In return, we never made her cry, but sometimes she cried for others, and some made her cry too.
Her capacity for quiet strength was remarkable; she could maintain perfect equilibrium even when confronted with severe setbacks, always taking deliberate, measured steps to restore serenity and balance. Her affection is a vibrant force that persists in the deepest recesses of our hearts, a covenant that triumphantly surpasses the limitations of physical existence and the transience of life. The deep impact of her role as a matriarch cannot be overstated; she was the silent architect of our moral framework and emotional stability, and the queen of our hearts.
As we reflect on her exceptional life and the vast bounty of goodness she left behind, our determination is not to be subdued by the grief of her physical absence, but rather, to eulogise the radiant splendour of her time amongst us. It is a legacy beyond epithets and the true portrayal of the lilting music of remembrance. We feel the unremitting pain of missing her absolutely and profoundly. She may have transitioned from this worldly realm, but her vital essence remains inextricably bound to ours, steering us with her quiet wisdom and inspiring us with her incomparable dignity. Sarojini’s life stands as an eternal affidavit to the transformative power of enduring love, deep empathy, and sacrificial duty. It remains a boon that richly augments our present and illuminates our future. True beauty, as she demonstrated, is not simply what the eyes can witness, but, more crucially, what the soul can permanently safeguard. What we perceive visually is destined to fade, but the treasures we store within our hearts will remain eternally.
Many, including myself, our daughter Maneesha and our grandchildren, Joshua, Malaika and Jaydon, have endeavoured with every available adjective and hyperbolic utterance to paint a faithful portrait of the superlative person that was Sarojini. Yet, even if we were to compile tomes detailing her excellence, the effort would still fall short of creating a realistic depiction that truly captures her profile. It is simply impossible to confine a description of her magnificence to even a substantial plethora of words.
For my part, I had the wonderful pleasure of the company of that stunning lady for all those blessed years, from the dawn of our courtship in 1973 until her fateful day of final rest. Despite the finality of that separation, memories remain the ultimate constant. I will forever recall her life as an exquisite and enduring strand, a beautiful composition, that will never diminish and will reverberate throughout the balance of my time on this planet Earth.
Sarojini, your loved ones strive daily to revere your memory by actively embodying the virtues you demonstrated so effortlessly: boundless compassion, humane benevolence, unbridled affection, and an unwavering commitment to the welfare of others. This is a matter of seminal importance to us, as it is a pledge towards the continuity of the very matrix of your tapestry of life on Mother Earth.
Darling Sara, I will end with a couple of lines from the 1996 Quadruple Chart Topper, “Because You Loved Me” by Celine Dion, which very concisely sums up what you were to me: –
“You’ve been my inspiration.
Through the lies, you were the truth.
My world is a better place because of you.”
by Dr B. J. C. Perera
(This appreciation appeared in The Island online edition on 06 Dec. 2025)
-
News6 days ago
Lunuwila tragedy not caused by those videoing Bell 212: SLAF
-
News1 day agoOver 35,000 drug offenders nabbed in 36 days
-
News5 days agoLevel III landslide early warning continue to be in force in the districts of Kandy, Kegalle, Kurunegala and Matale
-
Business3 days agoLOLC Finance Factoring powers business growth
-
News3 days agoCPC delegation meets JVP for talks on disaster response
-
News3 days agoA 6th Year Accolade: The Eternal Opulence of My Fair Lady
-
News1 day agoRising water level in Malwathu Oya triggers alert in Thanthirimale
-
Midweek Review6 days agoHouse erupts over Met Chief’s 12 Nov unheeded warning about cyclone Ditwah
