Features
We must return to the Kadirgamar doctrine
Lakshman Kadirgamar befriended me after the death of his friend, my father Mervyn de Silva, in 1999. At some event he had suddenly turned around – he told me – because he heard a laugh just like Mervyn’s. He knew Mervyn had died and he did not know who it was. It happened to be me. So that’s how we got to know each other personally.
My father Mervyn, and Lakshman Kadirgamar had been students at university. Dr. Gamani Corea and Mervyn de Silva commenced the Foreign Affairs Study Group (FASG) to review and restructure Sri Lanka’s foreign relations after the debacle of the late-eighties, the airdrop and so on, The FASG was then approached by President Premadasa who appointed Bradman Weerakoon, his Senior Advisor on Foreign Affairs, to be a member of that Group and to liaise with it. Mervyn invited his old friend, Lakshman Kadirgamar, who had come back to Sri Lanka after his stint at WIPO, to join, and inducted him into the FASG. That was Kadirgamar’s transition from international law to international relations and international politics proper.
After my father died, Mr. Kadirgamar used to invite me home. If his wife Sugandhi is in this audience, she would confirm that he would send the car for me; it brought me to his place by 8 p.m. and took me back at 3 a.m. He used to have this bottle of dark rum from the Caribbean (but not Cuban) which he saved for me and we used to discuss the problems of Sri Lankan politics at the time – very complex issues of war and peace, the Norwegian negotiations, the ceasefire agreement of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe and Velupillai Prabhakaran, the knock-on effects on our security and India’s. He seemed to think that inviting me over for those overnight one-on-one chats was of some value and use.
To move from personal acquaintance to Lakshman Kadirgamar’s thinking, which is what he leaves us, I was privy to that not only through my conversations, but in the sense that all of us are, because he was a public person, and there is nothing that he said in private that was at variance with his publicly held positions. I would go so far as to say that whenever we mourn the absence of Lakshman Kadirgamar, we should remember what he thought and did, and try to extract from that the principles concerned, which we may then apply and fight for in the political and international arena today.
Lakshman Kadirgamar did what was very difficult to do. He balanced antinomies, managed contradictions, reconciled and synthesised opposites. He was a principled man who took principled positions on difficult matters, but did so while remaining perhaps the most civilised, cultured, cultivated, and charming personality in public life that we have seen for a very long time. His affability and his wit were in no way at the expense of principle.
I would say that the problems with which Lakshman Kadirgamar grappled are in one way or the other are essentially the same problems that we face today, and which will intensify in the new period in international affairs we have stepped into with the second Trump administration.
Lakshman Kadirgamar reconciled the need for an autonomy-based or devolution-based political solution to what was known as the Tamil question, the question of the coexistence of the constituent communities of Sri Lanka – one side of the equation – with the need for safeguarding national sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.
This was very difficult to do, because in Sri Lanka during wartime, you had a schism between the narrow nationalists who were opposed to devolution, just as they were opposed to peace; and those who were for devolution, but were prone to engage in negotiations leading to policies which Kadirgamar considered to be those of appeasement, and which he opposed.
He advocated devolution. When President Kumaratunga presented her August 2000 constitutional reform package, a draft constitution, he made a very impassioned plea to Parliament that it be supported. I was at his residence because he had wanted me to come over, and when he came back from Parliament, he was crestfallen because Mr. Sambandan and the TULF, having promised him their support, had let him down.
Kadirgamar never stopped being for an autonomy-based solution, but he was also very strongly, very firmly, opposed to separatism and the LTTE, as well as to excessive unilateral concessions which he thought were being made by the Norwegian facilitators. He and President Kumaratunga tried, but not with sustainable success, to manage that by trying to change the mix at the Norwegian end, bringing in Vidar Helgesen over Erich Solheim.
Lakshman Kadirgamar was a very strong votary of national sovereignty, and he went on a war or battle of ideas on the matter. When Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe signed the ceasefire agreement (CFA), Mr. Kadirgamar made a landmark speech in Parliament, and then ensured its publication in a mainstream Sunday paper. The Foreign Ministry’s top official who had the ear of President Kumaratunga was quite unsure as to whether he should publish it, so LK brought the Editor or Political Columnist home and coaxed them to publish his speech.

Remarks at a panel discussion on the late Lakshman Kadirgamar at a charity event in aid of the Peter Weerasekara Children’s Home, Yakkala, held at the International Women’s Club Auditorium, Colombo 7. Other panellists were Prof Rajiva Wijesinha and Dr Sakuntala Kadirgamar. The event was organised by Mala Weerasekara.
In his speech he made the point that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s ceasefire agreement contained the danger of a division, of separation, in that it had a ‘line of control’ which recognised a demarcation of the island into two territories and could become a ‘hard border’.
I re-emphasise that Kadirgamar was very strong on the issues of national independence, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity, but was at one and the same time a very strong advocate of devolution and autonomy.
Sri Lankan society, especially Colombo society, tends to be polarised between those who are nativist, anti-Western elements, Sinhalese ultra-nationalists, and those others who are cosmopolitan liberals or neoliberals, who have very little respect or affection for issues of national sovereignty. To reiterate, you have ultra-nationalists, and you have those who are supplicants of the West. Lakshman Kadirgamar was neither, and was opposed to both.
Kadirgamar was very clear about the role of the United Nations and the limits it should observe in the Sri Lankan conflict, but he also made a powerful speech endorsing universal human rights at the UN Human Rights Council.
Kadirgamar was a close personal friend of US Secretary of State Colin Powell. They were on first name terms, but I recall his dismay which he shared with me that Colin Powell had told him, “Lakshman you know that you cannot possibly win this war”. That was a negative notion which Kadirgamar did not adhere to. Moreover, he was saddened by the less than robust commitment and solidarity from a friend.
Lakshman Kadirgamar did what is now seen as impossible in Sri Lanka, but was perfectly possible because he proved it so by practicing it. He was friends with the United States, China and India but as a Sri Lankan he knew what to take from each major global player, where to stop, and where a line had to be drawn.
In his adroit, ambidextrous balancing of the United States and China, and India and China, he never permitted (and would never have permitted) any large footprint for the USA, India or China on the soil on this small island. Kadirgamar knew that balancing between the two, India and China, or even the United States and China, does not mean giving each one a foothold in parts of your small island. He knew that you have to operate in the interstices, in the space between the US and China, between India and China, not give our small space to any one of the three.
I conclude by recalling to you the famous interview that he gave the BBC’s Zeinab Badawi about which I heard from Badawi herself in Geneva. The BBC programme is out there and is a model of how Sri Lanka must present its case. Kadirgamar rejected the idea of an ethnic or narrow ethnic identification by saying famously, I am not a tribalist. That is something that we must all remember and adhere to, whether it is Tamil or Sinhala tribalism. But he was no less firm and resolute in his pushback on issues of the secessionist war, terrorism, national sovereignty and independence. Zeinab Badawi who began the interview with her usual flair and challenging attitude, told me that at the end of it, not only was she pretty much convinced, but she and her husband became Lakshman’s friends from that point on.
Lakshman Kadirgamar showed us how to defend the country while being friends with all; how to establish personal relations at the highest level but not giving an inch on issues of national security, national sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence. We must return to the Kadirgamar doctrine. I think the Kadirgamar doctrine, if I may call it that, must be rediscovered, re-excavated as it were, and should be enshrined as the guiding foreign policy doctrine of the Sri Lankan state in these troubled times.
By Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka ✍️
[Remarks at a panel discussion on the late
Lakshman Kadirgamar at a charity event in aid of
the Peter Weerasekara Children’s Home, Yakkala,
held at the International Women’s Club Auditorium,
Colombo 7. Other panellists were Prof Rajiva
Wijesinha and Dr Sakuntala Kadirgamar. The
event was organized by Ms Mala Weerasekara.]
Features
Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics
The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.
To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.
For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.
At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.
This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.
Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.
On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.
The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’
Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.
There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.
Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’
Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’
It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.
One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.
Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.
Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.
Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.
China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.
Features
The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order
“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”
— Henry Kissinger
That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.
The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.
Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.
The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.
My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”
Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.
Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.
Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.
Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.
For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.
If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.
Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.
India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.
In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.
Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.
What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.
This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.
Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.
Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.
Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.
History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.
The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.
By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
Features
Egypt … here I come
Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage
Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._
I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:
1. Tell me something about yourself?
I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.
2. What made you decide to be a model?
Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.
3. What sets you apart from other models?
I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.
4. What clothing do you prefer to model?
I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.
5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?
Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.
6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.
7. School?
I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.
8. Happiest moment?
One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!
9. Your idea of perfect happiness?
Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.
10. Your ideal guy?
My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.
11. Which living person do you most admire?
I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.
12. Your most treasured possession?
My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.
13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?
I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.
14. Your most embarrassing moment?
I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.
15. Done anything daring?
Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.
16. Your ideal vacation?
My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.
17. What kind of music are you into?
I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.
18. Favourite radio station?
Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.
19. Favourite TV station?
At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.
20. Any major plans for the future?
My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.
-
Features4 days agoSri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa
-
News5 days agoLanka’s eligibility to draw next IMF tranche of USD 700 mn hinges on ‘restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel’
-
News4 days agoKapila Chandrasena case: GN phone records under court scrutiny
-
News4 days agoRupee slide rekindles 2022 crisis fears as inflation risks mount
-
Features1 day agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Business4 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features6 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News4 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case
