Features
Ranil’s special relationship with India and the peace process
Ranil gave a very special place towards relations with India. He obviously knew its political leaders and most of the important officials intimately. He knew a great deal about their background and not only of their politics. I was often surprised with his deep knowledge of Indian political alliances and even personal family relationships. He had visited many times in both north and south and had friends from Kerala to Bihar. He never missed, when in Delhi, paying a call on those who had become over time, his personal friends.
He always met in their homes I K Gujral, former Indian prime minister and Sonia Gandhi, leader of the Congress party. In addition, of course he had numerous opportunities of talking, lunching and dining with the former PM, Atal Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani, the virtual brain behind the BJP, former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha, Jaswant Singh, the former minister of finance and several of the excellent younger ministers of the Cabinet. The relationships were easy between Ranil and these men, and they seemed to enjoy each other’s company and the frequent visits of the Sri Lankan leadership.
In between Ranil’s visits, Milinda (Moragoda) would ‘keep the home fires burning’ with hurried dashes to the Indian capital. Both India and Sri Lanka had fine representatives at the time Nirupama Sen, a senior and thoroughly experienced professional of India in Colombo and the genteel and urbane Mangala Moonesinghe of Sri Lanka in New Delhi. They worked without much fuss and bother keeping the lines between the two capitals clear and following up diligently on the many new initiatives which Ranil was zealously pursuing.
Two of the more important of these were the possibility of entering into a defence agreement and moving forward on the Free Trade Agreement towards a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). Discussions on consolidating the training and procurement arrangements with India into a defence pact surfaced during the last of Ranil’s visits to New Delhi in October 2003. In fact these arrangements had been in force ever since the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of July 29, 1987. In the letters exchanged between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President Jayewardene, which became an annexure to the Accord, it was agreed that India would “provide training facilities and military supplies for the Sri Lankan security forces”.
The Accord was never abrogated and this provision was faithfully carried out through the years. On an average over a thousand officers from the three services received advanced training at Indian staff colleges each year. As far as military supplies were concerned, this was restricted to what the security people called `non-lethal’ commodities like trucks and communication material. A strengthening of these arrangements was all that was being considered and this was seen to be of use in a domestic situation in which the opposition was making a lot of ground by charging that the LTTE were building up their strength through arms shipments by sea in readiness for a future war, while at the same time the Lankan forces were apparently been kept purposely under-equipped by the government.
The news that Indian help was forthcoming, at this stage, would make rubbish of the opposition claim, which in any event had no foundation. Opposition spokesmen were apt to repeat precise numbers, like 11, sometimes 15, arms shipments coming in without an iota of proof as to when they had come, what arms they carried, from where, and so on. If true, the Sri Lanka Navy would have had a great deal of explaining to do as to how this was possible with all the patrolling they were doing in the country’s northern and eastern waters.
The CEPA, Ranil had proposed, was to broaden the ambit of the FTA which had come into operation some years earlier. Under the Free Trade Agreement, bilateral trade in goods had increased by leaps and bounds but the balance had been, as was to be expected given the asymmetries in size and resources, in India’s favour. Although trade was nominally free and without duty, there were negative lists and quota restrictions which were inhibiting Sri Lankan exports to India. Moving into a broader economic partnership agreement would enable our services – banking, tourism, air services, investment and so on – to expand and help close the gap in the balance of payments between the two countries.
One of Ranil’s final acts in India was to accept along with Vajpayee the Report of the Joint Study Group and approve its recommendations for immediate implementation. The liberalization of the bilateral air agreement and the inclusion of private air services (and open skies) was one such recommendation. The historic entry of two private Indian airlines, Sahara and Jet into Sri Lankan air space in March 2004 signaled the beginning of concrete action on this important initiative.
It was clear that the Indian political leadership personally liked him and appreciated being kept in the picture about the evolving situation in Sri Lanka. Ranil was very familiar, too, with those in the Indian media world. He was invited as a guest speaker to the impressive ‘India Today’ global conclave in Delhi at the end of 2002 and made a major speech at the opening ceremony. He was also a close friend of the Ram family of The Hindu and would, when passing through Chennai, try to make contact with N Ram, its editor, who was a long time observer of the Sri Lankan scene. I know that he knew and enjoyed talking with Ms Jayalalitha, the mercurial and temperamental chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
Ranil and his wife Maithree, who accompanied him on his visits, were very much at home in India and with things Indian. They could appreciate its music, food, and the writings of its many fine novelists. Between them they exuded a broader knowledge and familiarity with modern India and its achievements than most other Sri Lankan leaders in their position. They could quite genuinely exult in the news of Aishwarya Rai winning the Miss World contest, Arundhati Roy the ‘Booker’, Sachin Tendulkar’s latest exploits in a Test Match or listen with pleasure to the haunting melodies, so close to the Sri Lankan, of A R Rahman in his exotic Bollywood musical, Bombay Dreams.
As in other things, like in his dress and the films he enjoyed watching, in the range of his choice of music, he could move with ease from the baila, which he sang with zest along with his classmates in the Mustangs tent at the annual Royal-Thomian match, into the world of Khemadasa or Mozart. With his eclectic tastes some would have called Ranil the renaissance man. I used to think that Ranil would have enjoyed belonging to the post-modern world of the future.
The Cease-fire Agreement of February 22, 2002
The heart of the peace process lay in the Cease-fire Agreement – sometimes and mistakenly called the MOU signed between Prabhakaran, the leader of the LTTE, and Ranil Wickremesinghe, prime minister, on behalf of the government of Sri Lanka. It was not like most other agreements signed by two people seated at the same table. This agreement was signed by Prabhakaran in Kilinochchi and Ranil Wickremesinghe in Vavuniya, on the same day – 22 February 2002 – a few hours apart. Jon Westborg, the Norwegian ambassador at the time, played a notable role in formulating drafts and handling the text of the agreement as the `facilitator’ of the Royal Government of Norway.
It was the first time in the history of the conflict that we had gone so far as to agree in writing on the details of the cease-fire and the course of future action. The 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement was between the two governments of India and Sri Lanka and the LTTE, the main actor in the conflict, was not directly involved.
I am convinced that it was only possible to have come so far because of the facilitation. Without the ‘middle man’ the neutral intermediary – the actions of the ‘spoilers’ of whom there were many on both sides, would have been certain to have upset the process. The Cease-fire Agreement (CFA) was in the form of four Articles: Article 1 dealing with the separation of the fighting forces; Article 2 about measures necessary to bring about normalcy in civilian life in the north-east; Article 3 stipulating the duties and obligations of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM); and, Article 4 containing the standard sub-clauses as to the manner in which the agreement could be terminated by either party.
It was specified that abrogation of the agreement needed a period of at least two weeks notice. This was obviously to prevent – instances of sudden attack by the LTTE, as had happened at least twice before in the history of the conflict.
Managing the Process
Ranil spent a great amount of his time domestically on the conduct of the peace process. He was occupied, sometimes preoccupied by it, every day on most weekends and sometimes late into the night. Literally hundreds of meetings big and small took place with a variety of players – almost daily with the Minister of Defence Tilak Marapone and his military officials; with the Norwegian facilitators, both Jon Westborg and Hans Brattskar whose commitment and patience in the face of a very critical media was outstanding; with visits from abroad of the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister, Vidar Helgessen and his indefatigable men and women, who included the mystery man Eric Solheim; Yasushi Akashi of Japan with the legendary wisdom and experience garnered over several years in post-conflict management in the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia; the editors of the local newspapers and the free media movement, some of whom were supportive, and some very opposed, to what was going on; and sundry visitors from all part of the world like John Hume from Northern Ireland and ANC representatives from South Africa.
Virtually every visitor to the country was very interested in the peace process and Rand had to spend a great deal of time explaining and clarifying how this fragile adventure was moving. There was never a dull moment and I was very glad to be closely involved. Bernard Goonetilleke, head of SCOPP (Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process) who was at the time doing a long shuttle between keeping the diplomatic fire going in Beijing and attending to his work in the Peace Secretariat in Colombo, was totally engaged as was Austin Fernando, then secretary of defence. We tried to take some of the load off Ranil but all the major decisions had to be taken by him, the sensitivities being so complex and far-reaching.
The road to peace could literally be said to be marked by a number of illuminated sign posts – Bangkok, Berlin, Oslo, Hakone and Tokyo. In Oslo, between 2-5 December 2002 leading representatives of the two sides – Ministers G L Peiris, Milinda Moragoda and Rauf Hakeem on the government side and the leader of the Political Wing S P Thamil Selvam, Anton Balasingham and Jay Maheswaran on the LTTE side – achieved a great breakthrough. It culminated in the historic agreement when for the first time, the LTTE gave up its unwavering and consistent demand, of over 20 years, for a separate State of Tamil Eelam:
Responding to a proposal by the leadership of the LTTE, the parties agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. The parties acknowledged that the solution has to be acceptable to all communities.
This was a massive achievement apparent to anyone who had followed the history of the tortuous road of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict and attempts at its resolution. Ranil had won a major victory for his people and his country.
(Excerpted from ‘Rendering Unto Caesar’ by Bradman Weerakoon) ✍️
Features
Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future
Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.
Strengthening economic growth and diversification
Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.
Job creation and social stability
The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.
Competitiveness and export expansion
Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.
Attracting domestic and foreign investment
Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.
Promoting innovation and technological upgrading
Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.
Strengthening supply chains and local linkages
Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.
Environmental sustainability and resilience
Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.
Institutional capacity and governance
Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.
Responding to global technological and trade shifts
The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.
Conclusion
Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.
(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)
BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti
Features
How to insult friends and intimidate people!
US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!
From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.
Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.
Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!
However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!
The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!
Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?
With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.
Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.
Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence
One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:
Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.
Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations. The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.
Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).
First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the economic decline, characterised by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.
If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.
Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.
Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).
It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.
Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.
Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025).
Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.
Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.
by N. A. de S. Amaratunga
-
Business5 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion4 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business3 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business3 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business3 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business2 days agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business2 days agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial3 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
