Features
Memorable moments during my years in Parliament
(Excerpted from Memories of 33 year in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne)
I have had over 30 years service in Parliament, but I was not regarded as a public servant, because the Constitution exempts the Secretary General and his staff from being average public servants. In that sense I had a safeguard because I knew if I were to be removed from office, neither the President, nor the Prime Minister, could remove me because the Constitution safeguarded my position. It is only by a Resolution of Parliament that I could be removed from office, a privilege also given to the Elections Commissioner, Auditor General and a select few.
In my 30 years service there have been numerous instances where I’ve held opposing views to those of Members of Parliament (MPs). As far as the public were concerned, they had no opportunity to speak to me at all, except may be on the phone. I would always take a call. But with 225 MPs holding different political views and variations, there were many instances where I had to deal with them, but I have always prided myself as a person who doesn’t lose his temper.
Whenever an MP came to my room, the first thing I would do was to ask him or her to take a seat and then listen very carefully to their point of view and then I give my point of view which was more or less an official viewpoint either on matters relating to parliamentary procedures, the administration of the House, matters connected to the MP’s hostel or the administration of General’s House (MPs holiday home) in Nuwara-Eliya. The administration of these places came under us. One thing I learnt as a parliamentary officer is to expect the unexpected but there are events catching you by surprise even if you have been on the job for years.
Unexpected visitor of Christmas day
On Christmas day 1984 I was relaxing at home. Parliament was in recess after the year end Budget had concluded and there was a gap of two weeks or so for sittings to commence in the New Year. But my day of rest and relaxation turned out to be rather memorable when I had an unexpected visitor, none other than Industries Minister Cyril Mathew of the JRJ government. There were rumours of him falling from grace with the all-powerful executive President who was known to have with him the undated letters of resignation of all his MPs.
I was taken aback to see him, accompanied by a lawyer, at my door. He believed that President Jayewardene had sent his undated letter of resignation to Parliament and insisted that I give him a letter saying that he had requested me not to accept his letter of resignation if it was ever sent to me. I politely invited him in and asked him to have a piece of Christmas cake and to come to my office and we could discuss the matter the next day. He refused my request and said, “I am not leaving your house until you give me a letter saying you have accepted my letter asking you to disregard this letter of resignation.”
It was a holiday and there was no way for me to consult the Attorney General or anyone else for advice and he was refusing to leave the house, so I had to give a letter saying I acknowledge the letter that was given by him. Subsequently he was removed from his ministerial portfolio, and I had to allocate him a back bench seat in the Chamber. I felt uneasy to do this, but I had no choice.
Meal for an MP at 2 a.m.
One day I had a call from Sravasti, the MP’s Hostel which was also administered by Parliament, at 2 a.m. An MP had come at the time and was demanding dinner and they had rung me to ask what they should do. I told the staff to provide the MP with a meal that they could prepare at that time. A few days later the MP in question came to see me. He said that he had been served a meal prepared with canned fish and had been charged Rs. 75 which was the cost for the whole tin when all he had eaten was a piece or two. I had to politely tell him that if the can had been opened to prepare a meal for him, he would have to pay for the full tin. The MP left my room, though not very happy.
MP wanted his wife and son to stay with him at Sravasti
Similarly, an MP who was staying in the hostel one day approached me and told me that he wanted to have his wife and son staying with him at Sravasti. I explained to him that this was not possible as Sravasti was strictly for MPs only. ‘The MP insisted saying he was from the Central Province, and he needed a place in Colombo from where his son could go to school. However, I had to be firm and explain to him that the rules did not permit families to stay in the hostel.
Dr. Colvin agrees to disagree
There was another occasion when Dr Colvin R. de Silva came to my room and said “Seneviratne, I know you have advised the Speaker about a ruling that he has given but we disagree with it.” I can’t remember the actual incident, but then I explained to him that these are the conventions, the procedures, that we followed and we had studied the pros and cons very carefully, before advising the Speaker. He understood my point of view and ended the matter by saying, “Seneviratne, I don’t quite agree but the ruling has been given and we accept it.” That was the gentleman Dr. Colvin R de Silva was.
MPs who make irregular requests
Then there was a Tamil MP from Nuwara-Eliya who had gone to see President D.B.Wijetunga and wanted a telephone connection to an annex of a house which was five miles away from his residence. The President himself rang me and asked me to see if the connection could be given but I told him that as the place he wanted the new telephone connection was some distance away from his residence, they would need to install a new telephone line, and this is not permissible as the MP did not live there.
The rule is that if you’re living in a house and if you want the telephone there I could authorize it but in this case the request was to fix the phone five miles away from where he lived. The MP met me explaining that he had met President D.B. Wijetunga about the matter. I told him that I had explained to the President the regulation regarding this. He accepted it and I said I regretted I could not help him. Disappointed, he left my office.
Then there was one MP who came to me after he got to know I was buying six buses for the Parliament staff. He told me we should buy some of the buses from his company. I flatly refused. I explained to him that an expert committee of engineers conversant with buses was appointed by me and I would only act on their decision. I told him if I reported him to the Speaker that he is having such a transaction as an MP, he could lose his seat.
Similarly, there was a day when I stayed overnight in my room in parliament because of threats I received warning me not to come to parliament. Thinking there could me a move to prevent me from getting to Parliament the next morning which was a crucial day, and my presence was imperative for the functioning of the House, I remained in the building overnight.
Thankfully, one thing I never did during my years of service was lose my temper. At times you are made to feel that you are subservient to the MPs in the sense they are elected representatives. Once they come to Parliament they feel that they are all powerful and they can have their own way. So up to a point we try to accommodate them, but we cannot break the rules. I maintained this position throughout my tenure of Parliamentary service.
Mock session of the House
One of the most extraordinary scenes witnessed in the chamber of the old House of Representatives by the sea was the staging of a mock session of Parliament and the summoning of the Police on duty to remove a Member of the House. On April 6, 1955, Speaker Sir Albert Peiris suspended the sittings of the House and left the chamber ordering the sergeant-at-arms to have MP Somaweera Chandrasiri (Kesbewa) removed from the chamber.
At this stage, Dr. W Dahanayake (Galle) proposed that Mr. Edmund Samarakkody (Dehiowita) take the Chair. Mr. D.B.R. Gunawardane (Kotte) seconded the motion. Mr. Samarakkody then took the Chair and called upon Mr. Chandrasiri, who earlier had been suspended, to continue his speech. Mr. Chandrasiri started to speak. This mock session of parliament continued until the sergeant-at-arms entered the chamber accompanied by the police and removed Mr. Chandrasiri.
Arising from the motion of the Members, the Attorney General made an application to the Supreme Court under Section 25 of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act that Mr. Dahanayake and Mr. Samarakkody be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished for offenses of breach of privileges of Parliament. The case was eventually heard before Justice H.N.G. Fernando who held: “Assuming an intention on the part of the respondents to be disgraceful, their conduct being included within the scope of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, cannot be questioned or impeached in proceedings taken in this court under Section 23 of the Act. The jurisdiction to take cognizance of such conduct was exclusively vested in the House of Representatives. The respondents are accordingly discharged from the notice served on them.”
Drama within the chamber
The Parliament Chamber has been the scene of many dramatic events as when steel-helmeted, baton-wielding policemen entered the chamber on the night of 12 February ,1959, on the orders of Mr. Speaker and physically carried out Dr. N.M. Perera, the Leader of the Opposition and 11 other Members of Parliament. This was one of the stormiest episodes in the history of the Ceylon Parliament. The removal of Dr. Perera and the other Members was the sequel to their defiance of the Speaker’s ruling that he accepted a closure motion on a debate on the Public Security (Amendment) Bill.
When Dr. N.M. Perera was to be removed, the other Members of the LSSP threw a cordon around him and tried to prevent the police from carrying Dr. Perera. After the Police had broken through the cordon and lifted Dr. Perera to be carried him, the LSSP Members clung on to him singing the Internationale, the left-wing anthem. While Dr. Perera was being carried, bedlam broke out in the galleries and they had to be promptly cleared.
Mr. Robert Gunawardene, after he was named, stood on his chair, and addressed the House. Later, he mounted the desk and continued to speak. At this stage, the Police entered the Chamber to remove Mr. Gunawardene. While he was being carried out, he shouted, “do not squeeze”, “do not squeeze” which prompted the Prime Minister, Mr. S.WR.D. Bandaranaike to say, “gently, gently.” That day, except for Mrs. Vivienne Goonawardene who, if I recall correctly, tied her sari pota firmly to her seat, every other Member of the LSSP was bodily removed from the Chamber.
Religious observances which were never associated with the work of Parliament once became the subject of a breach of privilege. Rev. Henpitagedera Gnanaseeha Thero, in the course of a sermon delivered after the alms-giving in memory of Mr. S.WR.D. Bandaranaike in the Parliament building on 26 September, 1962, said demons and evil spirits (yakkas, prethas and kumbandas) who had taken possession of some of our Parliamentarians have now left them in view of this dana and pinkama.
The next day, Mr. Dahanayake drew the attention of Speaker R.S. Pelpola to the sermon as reported in the “Ceylon Daily News”. He said that the sermon was a gross breach of privilege of the House and asked the Speaker to take suitable action. At the next meeting of the House held on November 6, Mr. Speaker read a letter he had received from the venerable monk expressing his regret and said that in view of the readiness with which the monk had expressed his sincere regret, it would suit the dignity of the House to accept the apology.
On 22 November, 1962, when Mr. K.M.P. Rajaratna (Welimada) defied the Chair and Mr. Speaker named him and asked him to leave the Chamber, he refused to comply. The speaker ordered the sergeant-at-arms to remove Mr. Rajaratna and suspended the sittings. The police were summoned into the chamber. For more than two hours, the guardians of the law grappled with the lawmakers who were out to prevent Mr. Rajaratna from being carried out. In this confusion, Mr. Lakshman Rajapaksa (Hambantota) removed the Mace from the Table and walked away. The Sergeant-at-Arms however took the Mace from Mr. Rajapaksa and placed it on the Table. Finally, when the police broke through the cordon and carried Mr. Rajaratna out of the House, the Members with the public in the galleries joining, began to sing, “He is a jolly good fellow”.
Some witty sayings of parliamentarians
Reretably, the witty sayings I have heard of and experienced in my tenure have been few, especially during my latter years. We hear several of these in the British House of Commons, many attributed to Winston Churchill. But I feel I should try and recollect a few for the future in our own land.
Immediately coming into mind is a sharp remark by Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake. He made a wisecrack on his close friend Maithripala Senanayake, Member of Medawachchiya. It was very well known at that time that he was courting a well known young Tamil lady journalist he later married. This lady had even visited my room in Parliament looking for Maithripala. Mr. Senanayake’s comment was as follows: “I appreciate the Member for Medawachchiya and his habits. He firmly believes in Sinhala only by day and the reasonable use of Tamil at night.” The House burst into spontaneous laughter.
Yet another I recall and believe is attributed to Edmund Samarakkody, Member for Ruwanwella. Being very perturbed at the conduct of fellow Members in the House he remarked in the chamber, “Hon. Speaker, I wish to say that half of this Assembly are idiots.” There was a big uproar and a Member stood up and complained to the Chair that he was insulting the Members of the august Assembly and deanded that he withdraw that statement. Mr. Samarakkody promptly got up and addressing the Chair said, “Hon. Speaker I withdraw that remark in deference to my colleagues. Half the Members of this Assembly are not idiots” Indeed a sharp and witty reply.
Another which comes to mind is the sharp comeback from my dear friend Sarath Muttetuwegama, Member for Kalawana. He was seated patiently in the chamber one day listening to Mr. Attanayake, Deputy Minister of Education at that time who continued to harangue Mr. Muttetuwegama saying “Hon. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kalawana, if he ever speaks in this chamber, only talks of Marx, Marx and Marx. Isn’t he capable of talking about someone else?” Sarath Muttetuwegama was soon on his feet saying, “Hon Speaker, I do not know for what reason the president gave him this portfolio of education. To the Hon. Member, Karl Marx, Groucho Marx, and the marks given by a teacher in the class all mean the same thing. So please sit down and be silent.” Sheepishly Mr. Attanayake sank in his seat amidst a lot of laughter amongst the Members.
There was much speculation and mischievous gossip about the relationship between the two UNP leaders of the time viz. Dudley Senananayake and J.R. Jayewardene and a possible split between them. Stanley Tilakaratne, short in stature was an inveterate heckler and he queried Dudley Senanayake about a possible split. Dudley Senanayake was on his feet and retorted sharply, “As for splits the Hon. Member for Kotte has an advantage over me he sees them at eye level.”
Bernard Aluvihare the erudite lawyer from Matale crossed over from the SLFP to join the UNP before the 1956 Elections which the SLFP won with a substantial majority. Pieter Keuneman known for his sharp wit commented: “Rats normally jump out of a sinking ship, but this is the first rat jumping into one.”
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
-
Latest News3 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Opinion6 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
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
