Features
Two aged US presidents square off in debate for the ages
Democrats panic as President Biden has a dismal night
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
The Biden-Trump debate, touted as the political face-off that would change the course of history, was held Thursday night at the CNN studios in Atlanta, Georgia. The rather unusual ground rules for the debate had been agreed upon by the candidates weeks ago. It was the earliest presidential debate in history, held as it was more than four months before election day in November.
These ground rules were considered to be essential to avoid a repetition of the debate between these two when they were candidates for the presidency in 2020. During that first debate nearly four years ago, the general consensus was that Trump was “unhinged, bullied, bulldozed and obfuscated” (CNN), talked “incoherently and rattled off unfounded and baseless attacks” (NBC) spewed “misleading claims and outright lies” (New York Times) and showed he had “nothing but contempt for the values and norms that are essential to democracy” (Washington Post). No one wanted to see that kind of confrontational fiasco again.
The moderators of the debate were CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. The estimated millions watching from home had a variety of viewing options. CNN started the live broadcast at 9.0 p.m. EST on Thursday June 27, with every major network, domestic and international, providing a simulcast.
There was no live studio audience to chime in with cheers and jeers while the candidates were speaking during the 90-minute debate, a distinct disadvantage for Trump, who feeds off the hysterical cheers of the audience as he throws red meat at them during his scandalous speeches, with a lie per minute. Another disadvantage for Trump was that the microphones of each candidate were muted while his rival was speaking, so he was not able to constantly keep interrupting Biden as he did at their first debate in 2020. Interruptions which finally elicited exasperated responses from Biden: “Will you shut up, man” and “It’s hard to get any word in with this clown”.
Trump won a coin toss to decide which side of the stage he would like his podium placed, and he chose, predictably, the right. Though the podiums were placed probably too close for comfort, just eight feet apart, for two men not overly fond of each other! They were required to remain standing for the duration of the debate, and were not allowed to bring any notes or have any contact with their staff. They were each given blank sheets of paper and pens.
President Biden and Trump prepared for the debate in vastly different ways, which reflected their individual characters and styles. Biden hunkered down with a few of his closest advisors at Camp David, the presidential country retreat in the wooded hills of Catoctin Mountains in Maryland, 100 km. from Washington DC.
Trump prepared for the debate by speaking to his voters at campaign rallies. Apart from his regular lies about his greatness and the constant whining about being the victim of the biggest witch-hunt in history, he kept harping on how he was expecting a strong performance from President Biden at the debate. This, after nearly four years of calling him “Sleepy Joe”, and an old man who couldn’t string two sentences together. His camp had realized that they may have set such a low bar for Biden that all he had to do to win the debate was to show up and remain conscious and standing for 90 minutes! Which is nearly all he did.
After the stirring speech Biden made at the State of the Union in March, they thought that Biden would make a strong debater. So Trump – and Fox News – spread the lie that he must have been jacked up (high) on performance enhancing drugs for the State of the Union speech. They claimed he would be so energized for this debate also.
Trump mocked that they (Biden’s staff) will be making sure “he’s sleeping now, because they want to get him good and strong; he’ll get a shot in the ass (perhaps cocaine) during the debate, so he’ll come out all jacked up”, the insinuation being that Biden can only perform well with the aid of drugs. Trump was talking about requiring Sleepy Joe take a drug test before the debate, with allegations ridiculous, insulting and unprecedented. Of course, President Biden need not insist that Trump also should take a similar test, because Trump doesn’t need any drugs to act like a crazy, unhinged buffoon.
At the beginning of the debate, millions saw a decent, elderly, but noticeably below par President Biden, facing an obese, orange-colored, convicted felon, in debt for hundreds of millions of dollars, desperate to win an election which will save him from a life in prison. Trump exuded false confidence, but he was well aware that his popularity is eroding after his recent convictions. He will face further problems after sentencing on the New York case of 34 felony counts on July 11, and he’s terrified at the prospect of imprisonment. So this debate was a matter of life or death for Trump.
Former First Lady Melania Trump was conspicuous by her absence, while First Lady Dr. Jill Green was there to support her husband in this crucial moment in his life, as any normal, devoted wife would.
The debate was lost in the first three minutes. Basically, the debate was between the old man against the con man, and the con man won outright. The old man behaved his age, and one couldn’t help but imagine how old and decrepit Biden would be at the end of a second term, when he would be 86-years-old.
Trump behaved like the con man he is, lied and prevaricated as usual, but he was stable and controlled in his lies. He repeatedly made assertions which were outright falsehoods, but Biden was not able to challenge him. Trump stayed focused and hinged for the full 90 minutes. He was the obvious winner, but when all his lies are brought out into the open, the win will not seem that conclusive. CNN Flash Poll results immediately after the debate had Trump winning the debate 67% to 33%.
Okay, it was just 90 minutes in the election campaign, even though it was a crucial 90 minutes. There are four months to go till the election. Ninety minutes of failure against all the hard and productive work Biden has done in the last three and a half years and the four months left till the election to redeem himself for one bad night. Resiliency has been Biden’s enduring quality in five decades of public service. Maybe he’ll recover from his dismal performance in the debate, when voters weigh the progress he has made in the economy, unemployment, etc., which has made the US economy the strongest in the world.
Still, I don’t think Biden will recover from this debacle. I also don’t think, after the debate, that Biden will be able to function in the toughest job in the world even till the end of his first term, much less for the next four years. When, at the risk of repeating myself, he will be 86-years-old.
Democrats are most concerned about Biden’s performance, and one operative said, “it’s hard to argue that Joe Biden should be our nominee”. The time to look for a replacement for Biden had long been overdue, but it’s a matter of extreme priority now. After all, Biden ran for the presidency in 2020 with the sole motive of stopping Trump from winning a second term, which would have destroyed the country, and serving as a one-term president as a bridge to the next generation of Democratic leadership. He has fulfilled both these objectives admirably.
The Democratic Party has a wonderful group of extremely capable and experienced leaders who will be able to replace Biden for the 2024 nomination as President. Maybe it is time for Biden to retire gracefully with great honors and hand over the reins of government to the next generation of Democratic leadership.
A young Democrat to the center of the Party will wipe the floor with convicted felon Donald Trump and his radical Republicans in November, and most importantly, destroy the existential threat that Trump presents to the Great Experiment of Democracy in the U.S.A.
Features
Addressing human rights needs multi-pronged approach
by Jehan Perera
The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for grave human rights violations committed during the armed conflict and in other periods of political violence.
The government may have felt sufficiently confident that its response to the High Commissioner’s update could be handled by its representative in Geneva and did not require the attendance of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Sri Lanka’s representative Sumith Dassanayake called for a fundamental review of country-specific mandates within the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has been facing repeated scrutiny in the form of successive UNHRC resolutions from 2012 onwards. Ambassador Dassanayake argued that such mandates should not continue indefinitely and must be regularly assessed against measurable objectives and tangible outcomes. This may reflect confidence that its record of reform is beginning to receive recognition internationally. The reports and statements at the Human Rights Council acknowledged progress in the government’s efforts to address corruption and economic crime.
The government’s anti-corruption drive has included investigations into allegations involving individuals who held the highest political offices in the country. The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with alleged misuse of public funds, and the investigation into the controversial SriLankan Airlines Airbus transaction involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, are examples of the reach of these investigations. The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa in connection with allegations relating to the Airbus purchase scandal has also demonstrated that the government is willing to pursue cases involving politically powerful figures.
Wide Range
The ongoing investigations appear to encompass a wide range of parliamentarians and government members, both past and present. They suggest that accountability for corruption is not being confined to lower-level officials or to individuals who lack political influence. This is precisely the kind of accountability that the public has long demanded and that previous governments have too often failed to deliver. The government is also reaching into the upper levels of the military hierarchies of the past. The case in which 11 young men, most of them Tamil, disappeared after being abducted in Colombo between 2008 and 2009 involved allegations that some families were asked to pay ransoms. The investigation into this case has reached senior military figures. The willingness to pursue such cases is important because it challenges the assumption that those who exercised power during the war are beyond the reach of the law. Such cases would provide a practical test of whether the government’s commitment to accountability for economic crimes is part of a broader commitment to the rule of law.
Success in prosecuting corruption cannot substitute for justice for those who were unlawfully killed, disappeared, tortured or otherwise victimised. The UN report noted that there had been no recognition or accountability for crimes under international law, gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties during the war. The government has yet to establish a credible and effective process to address the many cases of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing, torture and other serious violations. The government needs to take the international commitments it has inherited on human rights issues seriously. It needs to adopt a multi-pronged approach and go beyond focusing primarily on financial and corruption-related accountability.
Need Action
As a member of the international community, Sri Lanka has a responsibility to abide by the commitments it has made. It cannot selectively uphold international obligations postponing those that are politically difficult. Also, as a small country, Sri Lanka has a self-interest in ensuring the survival of international law, which is all that it has to protect it from the depredations of the bigger international actors. The erosion of international law by powerful states makes it all the more important that smaller states uphold the principles on which the international system is based. Sri Lanka cannot credibly appeal to international law when it is threatened from outside while disregarding its own obligations within. Sri Lanka also needs to win the confidence of its own population that it is committed to justice and equality for all. Public opinion polls and community-level research have disclosed that ethnic and religious minorities are appreciative of the sense of greater security they enjoy under the present government from ethnic or religious extremists.
But a sense of security is not the same as the fulfilment of rights. As far as the Tamil people are concerned, the government has yet to deliver on several of its specific promises. These include the long-standing problems of missing persons, the release of political prisoners who have been members of Tamil militant organisations, and the return of land taken over for military purposes during the war. The issue of Buddhist statues and archaeological sites found on their properties which are then taken from their control continue to trouble them especially as they see no signs of resolution of those disputes. The issue of pastureland in the east of the country in Mylathamadu is particularly concerning to them as they see orders by successive presidents, both President Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, being disregarded on the ground. The Mylathamadu pastureland dispute is where traditional Tamil dairy farmers have engaged in multi-year protests against the ongoing encroachment of their ancestral grazing lands by Sinhalese crop cultivators relocated under government development schemes.
The government’s failure to hold Provincial Council elections is particularly troubling. The provincial council system is the only one that can provide the Tamil people and other ethnic minorities the opportunity to wield political power and exercise a measure of self-determination in the areas in which they are the numerical majority. The continued postponement of Provincial Council elections therefore has consequences that go beyond an ordinary electoral delay. It deprives communities of an important constitutional avenue for democratic participation and power-sharing. The ethnic and religious minorities appreciate what the government is doing in the larger national interest, but they must not be made to feel that their special concerns are being ignored. The government cannot resolve Sri Lanka’s entire legacy of rights violations overnight. But it does need to demonstrate that it is willing to move forward on multiple fronts, not only on a few.
Features
The emptying university: why are academics leaving?
by Hasini Lecamwasam
Brain drain in Sri Lanka is at an all-time high. The latest Human Flight and Brain Drain Index for 2024 shows that we are 16th of 175 countries on this count, and first in South Asia. That this is a crisis goes without saying. Brain drain affects all sectors, and is a huge strain on the resources of a developing country. Particularly in Sri Lanka, where considerable public investment is made in the moulding of professionals through the system of free education, this amounts to transferring the resources of poorer countries to richer ones with top migration destinations. It is, therefore, important to consider the push and pull factors behind skilled outmigration, specifically from the public university system of Sri Lanka, a key focus of the Kuppi column.
From frustration to exit
Several bitter realities in our crumbling public university system act as push factors in the migration decisions of academics. Many essays on this column have, over several years, attempted to highlight numerous aspects of this erosion. Perhaps, primary among them is the lack of adequate funding, which has debilitating ramifications for the system: very little investment is made in the up-keep of infrastructure (and even less in its expansion), resulting in serious constraints in accommodating growing batches of students and the wellbeing of the staff (particularly in regional universities); research funding is negligible, severely curtailing academics’ ability to effectively discharge their primary duty of teaching which should ideally be informed by their research (and the research of others, access to which is also, unfortunately, mediated by funding); a funding crunch also means a slash in (or greater constraints on) recruitments, increasing the workloads of academics, currently in service, and eating into the quality of their teaching and research.
What recruitments are done frustrate those with any faith in merit. As many of our interventions in this column have shown, recruitment processes are characterised by archaic selection criteria that place very little weight on a candidate’s postgraduate growth and the advantages of interdisciplinary training. Added to this is the general preference for ‘culturally compliant’ candidates who would not rock the boat too much. The combined effect is that those with the capacity and spirit to try out innovations in education are discouraged from joining or staying on in the public university system. Some, or many, of them may instead seek appointments abroad.
A thread that binds all of these problems together is pervasive hierarchy which, again, many interventions on this column have sought to highlight. It is the interest in preserving hierarchy that leads to the preference for alumni in recruitment processes. Hierarchy within universities can be particularly frustrating for younger faculty and women, who typically have to bear the brunt of the workload of their senior, often male, colleagues. In a context of funding, and, therefore, recruitment, restrictions, this translates into a disproportionate burden being placed on junior (usually female) faculty, seriously hindering their prospects of growing into successful academics due to the time constraints within which they have to operate. Junior academics, therefore, are more likely to look to educational institutions abroad for what they hope would be a different work culture that respects them more.
Ideological ruses
On top of these structural frustrations are also the workings of neoliberal ideology. For one, the nature of relations between the global metropole and peripheral countries like Sri Lanka largely dictates what is desirable and what is not. The apparent lifestyles of Western countries – from food to clothing, housing, appliances, and so on – have continued to lure people from the periphery with the promise of a ‘better’ life, alongside better career advancement opportunities. This, of course, masks much of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes to survive in Western societies. For instance, in most cases highly attractive public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, clean air, quality control of food, and so on belie the astronomical privatised costs of healthcare and education. Health insurance is usually mandatory and steep in most high-income settings, while even subsidised education (for which eligibility criteria are strict) creates a serious dent in household earnings. Of course, the happy images of glossy trams and gleeful international travellers don’t convey this.
A second ideological ruse is the myth of greater opportunities and recognition abroad. While there is no denying that local skilled sectors – be it higher education, health, civil service, or private white-collar positions – are replete with issues that inhibit merit-based professional advancement, the notion that things are fundamentally different in Western countries stems from an uninformed optimism. As is now increasingly known and discussed, Western labour markets are notoriously racialised, and equivalent skills are rarely treated as such. Instead, it is usually demanded that skilled migrants clear certain formal examinations in their host countries. In fields like medicine, this is followed by an interview that may also be racially prejudiced. Once these initial steps are cleared, remuneration reverts to square one irrespective of experience accumulated abroad, not to mention the many subtle aggressions, rejections, and trials one has to go through in the negotiation of everyday life. In the many cases where professional qualifications are used as leverage for a move abroad, sights are set on a better future for one’s children, which again is informed by the misplaced faith in greater opportunities and a lack of awareness of the factors outlined above. Needless to say, in the global swing to the Right, things have become even more challenging. In such a context, considering the few rare cases where skilled migrants live extremely comfortable lives as the norm becomes a dangerous misconception.
The two ideological pull factors mentioned above are complemented by a push factor, which has to do with a highly classed understanding of what a white-collar professional is due in their society. Many of these aspirations are clearly articulated in academic trade union action demanding separate quotas for school entry, increased fuel allowances, winning back the presently stalled vehicle permit scheme, salary hikes, and so on. While working people have every right to agitate for better material conditions, insofar as it remains unconnected to a broader movement for improving the conditions of the lot of the working class, it remains self-serving and very much within the class logic of capitalist society. Since these demands are articulated as a means of maintaining distinction, it is clear that they are not envisaged as part of a class movement. The frustration of not having these needs for distinction satisfied may push some to seek greener pastures abroad, at least financially, (perhaps as a means of social mobility based on it), only to be disappointed on most occasions.
What is to be done?
Addressing the systemic push factors listed above requires, first and foremost, greater allocations for free public higher education. This would immediately translate into more recruitments and less work per academic, and better research and teaching in the long haul. An increase in funding would also ideally lead to greater infrastructural investments, especially including improving the living conditions of those who work in regional universities amid untold hardships. Next, fairer, more creative, and, therefore, more effective recruitment policies are badly needed to attract talented individuals to university positions. Rather than carving out a ‘special category’ for academics to achieve this purpose, which is informed by a classed logic, this needs to be done through fundamental reforms in recruitment processes. Third, a persistent attack on the entrenched hierarchy within universities through internal reform is much called for. Reforming recruitment practices will go a long way towards addressing this. Measures should also be taken to introduce more stringent policies against SGBV (not to mention ragging, even though it is not directly connected to brain drain). Such measures would create a safer, fairer, and more attractive workplace, which would give more reasons for people to stay.
On top of greater allocations, we also need a transformation of our aspirations themselves if this situation is to change. That necessitates a kind of education capable of questioning the ‘paradise’ conception of Western societies, and lays bare their colonial material and ideological dimensions, in both their historical and contemporary manifestations. These colonial understandings of the ‘good life’, moreover, have devastating ecological implications for the planet, not to mention social justice. An education with the ability to transform this mindset would hopefully prove to be more than a mere path to social mobility, rather being a tool of social emancipation that renders mobility moot.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is with the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Features
Friends favourite Suzi Croner returns for Oktoberfest 2026
Charming audiences in Switzerland as Suzi Flückiger, Sri Lanka’s own Suzi Croner is coming home… for a very special occasion.
The bubbly former frontline vocalist of 90s band Friends will take the stage at a popular venue in Colombo for Oktoberfest 2026.
Known in Europe for her country and classic hits, Suzi has remained a much-loved name back home. This will be a rare chance for local fans to see her live and celebrate the voice behind so many Friends memories.
Oktoberfest 2026 in Colombo promises an evening of live music, traditional Bavarian food and beer, colourful dirndls and lederhosen, folk dancing, and plenty of community cheer.

Suzi Croner (Flückiger)
Against this lively backdrop, Suzi will take the stage for a special solo set, featuring her own pre-recorded music. She performed at the event last year too, as a solo artiste, but a German band providing the music.
This year, however she says, it’s a different scene.
“The novel attraction will be the dancers from Germany — all girls, clad in German outfits,” Suzi said. She added that the event will also highlight the activities generally connected with Oktoberfest, which should generate a lot of fun and excitement for those who join her in Colombo next month.
Suzi has become a much-in-demand artiste in Europe, and has even performed Down Under, in Melbourne.
In Switzerland, where she has been based for the past 42 years, she continues to charm audiences with country and classic hits, performing at private events and community nights across Europe.
“My weekends are generally loaded with my work as a singer,” she said. “And I also play tennis three times a week, because I need to keep fit to entertain my audience in an active way.”
Her repertoire is made up mainly of Swiss, German and English songs.
And true to form, Suzi loves springing surprises.
“So watch out when you join me at Oktoberfest 2026, in Colombo!” she said.
-
Sports5 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News5 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Latest News4 days agoShafali, Deepti power India into sixth T20 Asia Cup final
-
Opinion7 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
Latest News4 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Features6 days agoLost for 90 years: Rare Goby resurfaces in Jaffna
-
News3 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News4 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
