Features
AFTERMATH OF THE 1953 HARTAL
Motion of No Confidence in Government (Hansard of 1st September 1, 1953)
(Speech made by Dr. NM Perera published in his birth centenary memorial volume)
Dr. Perera:Before I deal with the subject, I want to say a word about the Hon. Prime Minister and his references to my good friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bandaranaike). My friend the Prime Minister is not here. I hope that he has not had a recurrence of his affliction. Today while he was on the first part of his speech, he reminded me of the father; it was the same technique, the same type of personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition. I remember the last motion of No Confidence that we debated. I think it was moved just before the dissolution of Parliament, and it was one of the last debates which was attended by my good friend, the late Rt. Hon. D.S. Senanayake. He spoke in that debate and it was a tirade against my good friend the Leader of the Opposition.
The same technique has been adopted today by the son, my good friend the Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the motion before us; it is not an answer to the case we have made. What did he say? That my good friend the Leader of the Opposition for the last eighteen and a half years or so, has apparently, not raised his voice sufficiently in protest against the policy followed since the days of the old Legislative Council and the State Council, and in the early years of Parliament. That is not an answer to the case we are making. It is a pity that my good friend the Leader of the Opposition had no opportunity of answering that charge himself. Procedure does not permit him to do so at this stage, But this much must be said. He fought as hard as he could, as long as he could. It is to his credit that at long last he himself realized that the best thing he could do was to walk out of that clique that has been dominating the political life of this country.
The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam: Lust for power.
Dr .Perera: I am coming to that in a moment.
The second point was about his non-participation in the Hartal. Apparently there was an argument. The Hon. Prime Minister might have properly informed himself about the situation. In point of fact, the whole question of the Hartal was discussed by all sections of the Opposition together, as the only means of protest we had against a Government that refused to hearken to the cry of the people. The Hon Leader of the Opposition had a point or view. He said I think, this is a little too premature. That was his position, frankly stated in front of Members of the Opposition. He said “I want more time; I want at least to prepare, to go round the country and inform the people; it must be properly organized”, that is the point of view he took.
In our case the position was different because we had organized Trade Unions. He has no unions, his work is mainly in the rural areas, and it would take more time in his case. Therefore he wanted more time. We said “Very well; we have no other alternative”, and we had to go ahead in our various organizations. And we went ahead with the Hartal. That was the real explanation. The Hon. Prime Minister may have read out a letter that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition issued to the press, wherein he explained the position. He frankly and honestly stated that he was in full sympathy with the Hartal, with the aims and objects of the Hartal.
Mr. K.Herat (Nikaweratiya): He may have denied that.
Dr. Perera : That is your habit. You crossed over from this side to that side.
Mr. J.C.T. Kotalawala: And got something!
Dr. Perera: It is not fair to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to say that, he in his case, decided against this Hartal because he thought it was going to be violent, it was against established Government. That is not correct.
I want to go back to the main issue. If this debate has served no other purpose, it has at least provided us with a remarkable speech from the Hon. Prime Minister. For that alone this debate has been worthwhile. I have never known him in a more chastened mood. He ended by referring to the Buddha Jayanthiya, the celebration that was to take place after 2,500 years. Therefore, he said, all of us must pull together, co-operate and work towards the one common ideal of looking after the interests of the people He asked, “Is it not in the interests of the Members of the Opposition as well that we should join hands and work together, pull together to give the people the maximum benefit?”
I was wondering whether he was appealing really to his own colleagues on that side, some of his own people behind him.
Mr. Suntharalingam:On the sides.
Dr. Perera:Who do not always pull together.
The Hon. Major Montague Jayawickreme: Do not be mistaken:
Dr. Perera :My Hon. friend can fool lots of people but let him not try to fool me. I know what is happening and what has been happening.
Mr. Herat: Wishful thinking!
Dr. Perera:No. I can give you the facts. As soon as the Prime Minister was known to be ill, the “Daily News” was, on a particular day not very long ago, ready with an editorial and the speeches of a certain Minister who was going to be Prime Minister. Everything was ready, photographs of his childhood days.
Mr. Suntharalingam: Some childhood
Dr. Perera: Once again, a colleague of theirs in the Cabinet is slowly but steadily, aided by interested parties, trying to undermine their unity. I warn the Minister concerned once again.
Mr. Suntharalingam: Be careful!
Dr. Perera: He has to be aware to safeguard his own interests. Let him not be caught napping.
Mr. D.P.R.Gunawardena: They are poison gas all over the place
Dr. Perera: So much for the Buddha Jayanthiya.
I come back to the actual vote of No Confidence. A strange theory of democracy was pronounced by my good friend the Member for Chilaw, “What right have you to move a vote of No Confidence? You have no right”. An eminent Q.C. also said “You have no right.” What is their concept of democracy? They say that according to parliamentary democracy we have no right to question the Government. What is the purpose of a vote of No Confidence? Is it merely to defeat the Government?. How often have votes of No Confidence ended in the defeat of the Government? A vote of No Confidence has, in point of fact, a much more important objective. It is a means of educating the electors, the voters.
They have the full case placed before them. There is a fundamental purpose of a vote of No Confidence. And yet these great democrats say, “You have no right to move a Vote of No Confidence. Wonderful democracy! And this coming from a Parliamentary democrat, the son of a worthy father who was one of the greatest democrats in this country sounds strange.
Mr. Keuneman:What a father, what a son!
Dr. Perera:That is by the way. Let me come back to the Motion.
The motion consists of three parts; firstly, it deals with the period prior to August 12. Harking back to the past policy of the Government, the motion states that the policy adopted in Government budgeting has disclosed mismanagement, tolerance of corruption, financial ineptitude. All these have led up to the removal of the subsidy.
The second part of the motion deals with the removal of the subsidy. Our good friend the Q.C. from Colombo North pooh-poohed the idea of these various democratic organizations like elected local bodies expressing their views on this matter. He compared them to bullock-cart drivers and motor car drivers. That is his idea of democracy.
Mr. Ian de Zoysa. (First M.P., Ambalangoda-Balapitiya) He drew an analogy.
Dr. Perera: It was not an analogy. He stated that in so many words. As a matter of fact, I noticed that even the Hon. Prime Minister was thoroughly ashamed of the Hon Member’s remarks. The Hon Members dropped the analogy, and it became a direct attack on these bodies.
The second part of the Motion points out that we tried every democratic method available to us, by way of meetings and other steps, as pointed out by the Hon First Member for Colombo Central, to protest through various organizations, elected bodies, against the withdrawal of the subsidy. We had no reply, no response from the Government. We have demanded that the Government holds another General Election and let the people judge. What did the Hon Minister of Finance say? Even the eminent Q.C. said “We were elected for five years. We have to go on”.
All these are strange doctrines. Is this the kind of democracy we now have? Hon Members know that even the British Government dissolved Parliament at times to go before the country and place their case before it. Did not even the Labour Government, when it completely changed its complexion in 1931, dissolve Parliament and go before the country so that it would endorse their position? In 1931 the McDonald Government was fully entitled to go on, it could have gone for another four years.
The Hon. Mr.Ponnambalam: It was to bring in Baldwin.
Dr. Perera: According to the theories propounded it does not matter what you do. People have no right to question you! They say “We have the right to decide what we want”. The Hon. Minister of Finance stood up there and said ” We have been chosen for five years. You have no right to make this request for the next five years. You have no right to express protest in this House. The people must take our decision.”
That is the kind of democracy against which we have agitated and all Leftists have agitated. This is the worst type of dictatorship today. This is a bourgeoisie dictatorship, if you want to know it. What is this democracy? You elect a person. He comes in here by hook or by crook, and for five years the electors have no right to express their point of view whatever damnable thing this particular member may do, however blatantly he may betray the promises given to the electorate. He is entitled to continue, whatever happens. Is this the kind of democracy which they are advocating? What is democracy?
My good friend the Hon Second Member for Ambalangoda-Balapitiya (Mr. P.H.W. de Silva) answered that question. It means a continuing responsibility of those who govern to the governed. You must be responsive to the needs of the people. The people are entitled to say that they do not approve of a certain policy and at a certain stage when it becomes unbearable they are entitled to say ” We protest against your actions. We want a general election.”
That is the right of democracy. What does that UNESCO right to rebel provide? Can anybody seriously maintain that this is influenced by the Kremlin? On page 271 of the report of an International Committee you find this right: “In the event that Government of his nation operates contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and the basic human rights in such fashion that no redress is permitted by peaceful means, man has the right to set up a Government more nearly in conformity with justice and humanity”.
That is the right to rebellion or revolution. Then have you forgotten the definition of Professor Laski – “What is liberty but the right to rebel, the right to revolt?” Have you forgotten that liberty and democracy go hand in hand? These are people who are now talking about the people of the country having no right to have a Hartal. I almost thought that the Hon. Minister of Industries and Fisheries was Mahatma Gandhi incarnate.
Hon Mr. Keuneman:Devil incarnate.
Dr .Perera:He was expounding this theory of the Hartal, this peaceful demonstration. The “Hartal” I understand was of Russian origin. It came from Leo Tolstoy. He was the first man who originated the concept. It is true it was put into practice in a practical way and demonstrated with success by Gandhi himself.
The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam:The concept.
Dr. Perera: Quite right; but the manner in which the Minister of Industries and Fisheries went about the attack made us think it had nothing to do with Russia, that Russia was anathema to him.
The Hon. Mr. Ponnambalam: No, I spoke of nonviolence.
Dr. Perera:I shall come to the Minister in a moment. Let him not worry. This is only a passing reference. That was the second part of the motion to which I referred.
The third part refers to matters immediately before Aug. 12, even of the 12th and after August 12. Those are the three parts on which we are arraigning the Government. Nobody has seriously attempted to answer these charges. The Minister of Finance who spoke has not answered them at all. He merely tabulated a good deal of statistics. That is not an answer. If you start from zero and go up to 10 that is of course an advance to ten; but that is not the criterion to be adopted in determining whether a country has been properly served. It is much more important to find out whether in keeping with other progressive countries you have come up to their level.
When you put down your infant mortality rate to something like 178 did you think that was a credit to a civilized country? That you were able to bring it down to 178 is still not a credit to a civilized country. That is not an important criterion. The criterion is whether this Government has fulfilled the expectations of the people of this country. That surely is the deciding criterion in this matter.
That is not the answer to the case we are making. Once again the Prime Minister took up the position. “What can we do? We have no alternative. If we provided Rs.160 million as a subsidy then we would have been on the verge of bankruptcy, if not actually bankrupt. If we provided the subsidy what would have happened? We would have to cut down other votes, while yet the Opposition in this House is clamouring for more money for village wells, for village roads, for slum clearance, for maternity welfare, for milk feeding centres and so on”. He asked how they could have all that if they had provided Rs.160 million to continue the subsidy.
I cannot make again the speech I made in the course of the Second Reading Debate on the Appropriation Bill, but on that occasion I pointed out to Hon. Members how it was possible to find that money. In point of fact, taking the Minister’s own figures in column 806 of Hansard, Volume 10, if you leave out extraordinary expenditure, except for the year 1951-52, you will find that every year, after paying a subsidy, we have had a balance to the good, a surplus on the normal expenditure. It is only when you come to the Loan Fund Expenditure that you have an overall deficit, and that was only in respect of expenditure financed from National Development Reserve – food subsidy, advance to stores and material advance accounts, other advances and miscellaneous items. All that brought for you, your net cash operating surplus or deficit.
It was possible for this Government, according to the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister, to see that these loan funds were spread out and used purely as capital expenditure. That could have been done without seriously impinging on your normal day-to-day expenditure from normal revenue.As regards the Rs.160 million there were other ways, as had been pointed out, of meeting that expenditure. It is not necessary to go over that ground again.
There were two ways: you could either cut down expenditure or increase revenue. Surely both ways could have been used for the purpose? Does this Government, for instance, seriously maintain that it was necessary to spend Rs.30 million on the armed forces, to spend Rs.3 million on the shifting of the Supreme Court, to spend Rs.2 million on Police garages, and to spend money for an independence memorial and a new secretariat at this stage? Those are all dead weight expenses and could well have been held over until this particular crisis was over, instead of asking the poor people to tighten their belts. That was one way of looking at the problem. The other was to increase revenue by other means.
(To be continued)
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.
-
Sports4 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News4 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
-
Opinion6 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
Latest News4 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Features5 days agoLost for 90 years: Rare Goby resurfaces in Jaffna
-
News2 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News3 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
