Features
UNP humiliates CBK in cabinet,JVP-SLFP talks begin
Our priority was to safeguard party members from the wrath of UNPers who after seven long years tasted power albeit with a PA President as the head of the country. The first victim of this change was CBK who presided at Cabinet meetings under the “cohabitation” arrangement provided for in the Constitution. She and Ranil, childhood friends, got on well but some of the “primitives” in the Cabinet harassed her. They arranged a “pre-Cabinet” meeting where they discussed the agenda as well as ways and means of embarrassing her. One alleged that she had hidden a camera and a recorder in her handbag. They demanded a body search before meetings began. Others addressed her rudely.
But CBK kept her cool and broke down only after she came back to President’s House. A few of us including Mangala, Lakshman Kadirgamar and her Secretary Balapatabendi remained at the entrance to President’s House to welcome her back after Cabinet meetings. Another worrisome UNP technique was to avoid briefing her on negotiations particularly on the ethnic front, little realizing that the Service Chiefs were keeping her informed. LK was selected to liase with Ranil on a regular basis so that communication channels regarding the LTTE were kept open. It must be said that Ranil took special care to make CBK comfortable by calling on her to discuss the agenda before the Cabinet meeting, for which he came over to President’s House. But such courtesies were not extended by many of his colleagues.
Horrendous violence was unleashed against our activists. We armed a small group to fan out to the country to intervene with the police and also provide legal assistance. I was assigned Galle and Matara as I had good contacts with the police high ups there who were my contemporaries in Peradeniya. What I found was that most officers who had remained neutral during our regime did their job properly while those who “kowtowed” earlier suddenly turned non-cooperative. There was one officer who claimed to be a relative of Vijaya Kumaratunga and Carlo Fonseka and had got many benefits, who suddenly became aggressive and harassed our supporters without mercy.
We also deployed party lawyers to appear for our supporters. Mahinda Rajapaksa, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, Anura Yapa and John Seneviratne rendered yeoman service during this time traveling to all parts of the country on behalf of party members and appearing in court to represent them free of charge.
Talks with the JVP
At this time it was decided to begin talks between the SLFP and the JVP so that we could work out a “minimum programme” of action in order to face forthcoming elections as an alliance. For the JVP this was a soft option as they could neither help the UNP nor go it alone. They had done well to win 16 seats and had enough clout to make an impact in Parliament because they did their home work well and made impressive presentations. They also earned a reputation for honesty. But we also knew that there were ideological cross currents internally and for the moment the “Parliamentarians” held sway. But a militant faction led by Kumar Gunaratnam was opposing an alliance.
The JVP delegation included Tilvin, Anura, Wimal, Bimal Ratnayake and Sunil Handunnetti. Our side was represented by Anura Bandaranaike, Mangala, Nimal Siripala and me. As expected our committee members were often absent while the well briefed JVP ers turned up in strength. Very often I was the only one from our side while all JVPers diligently attended discussions.
Once Anura Dissanayake told me that he had come from Ampara post haste to attend the talks even skipping his meals. However they also had one on one meetings with Mangala, Anura and LK who were identified as their friends. I briefed CBK regularly and she, as was her wont, kept a close tab on developments. Discussions moved slowly because the PA could not agree with many of the JVP proposals. Perhaps because of their internal ideological problems with Gunaratnam and his clique they came with written briefs and wanted our side to adopt them. That was not feasible and the talks were hitting snags when I suggested a formula usually adopted by the UN when confronted with intractable differences of opinion. That was to state the problem and then admit the differences between the two interlocuters.
Each side would then state its position on that particular issue and move on. The JVP delegation seemed satisfied with that formula and on the following day, perhaps after internal discussions, agreed enthusiastically. Still some difficulties existed and it was decided to have a meeting with CBK. She took a strong line and sent me a note which I still retain saying “Don’t give in; they will fall in line”. Individual JVPers then approached LK, Anura and Mangala to soften the blow. But after further discussions they gave way and we signed the agreement with great pomp at a massive meeting held opposite the Town Hall.
LK whose antiLTTE line was applauded by the JVP gave a heartfelt speech which was translated to Sinhala by Nimal Siripala. Mangala described LK’s apotheosis as “the flavour of the week”. Later in time when CBK dithered over appointing a Prime Minister the JVP made a request in writing that LK should be the one. On many occasions subsequently CBK confessed that she had made one big mistake. Perhaps she was referring to her choice of Mahinda over LK for the Prime Ministership but one does not really know and she too has not named names in her authorized biographies.
It may be of interest to note that India which held LK in high regard lobbied for his appointment as PM. But CBK had to give way to Mahinda who had marshalled party members and through intermediaries threatened to breakup the SLFP if he was thwarted. DEW Gunasekera told me that he and Batty Weerakoon (LSSP) had lobbied for Mahinda.
Party spokesman
At a meeting of the party group I was appointed the party spokesman. I decided to take this seriously and started weekly press conferences held on the ground floor of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, Mahinda Rajapaksa. We held our conferences the day after Cabinet meetings and were able to counter their decisions which the media was happy to publicize since we were more media savvy than government bureaucrats. The Minister of Finance Choksy did not want to meet the press and we capitalized on that too.
My media secretary Gamini Gunasekera was a hard bitten ex-Lankadipa journalist who had all the proper contacts. We had the support of many of the trade unionists who were ignored by their respective parties now that they were without office. For instance the railway workers who opposed the privatization of their department were given a platform at our press meetings. Similarly bank employees who were on strike were supported by us. Alawi Moulana arranged a demonstration up to the Fort railway station. Mahinda joined us at the last moment and was accommodated as a leader in the parade.
LK frequently addressed our press conferences and raised an alarm about the government’s “give aways” to the LTTE. In particular he referred to developments in the east coast near Sampur – the capture of which would have changed the complexion of the conflict. CBK invited me to participate in a meeting of the Security Council. I was shocked by the complacency and incompetence of the then service chiefs who had been selected for their political malleability rather than efficiency – one happened to be a voter in Attanagalla and another a close kinsman of Balapatabendi.
There was talk of area commanders taking leave from their stations after receiving information of an impending attack. The complacency of the Security Council to the prospect of the fall of Sampur which would have enabled the LTTE to train their long range guns onto Trinco harbour, was very worrisome. We highlighted this at our press conferences and LK had also to use his personal contacts in the media to alert the country. One day he told me in desperation, “If the Sinhalese cannot understand what I am saying about this danger, what am I to do?”
The publicity generated by us compelled Mahinda to review his early attitude of ignoring the Press spokesman. Later he came early to his office and followed by his coterie sat with us at the head table. The publicity generated by us embarrassed the government but their attempts to counter us were futile. CBK came under much pressure to do something about the failing security situation and her thoughts were turning towards a decisive move. It was mainly the security situation which led her to take over three key ministries and appoint senior PA members to those positions.
This sent shock waves throughout the country. UNP backbenchers expected Ranil to fight back. They gathered in strength at Katunayake airport to greet their returning leader in order to goad him to challenge CBK’s move. He did no such thing but continued to govern with the reconstituted Cabinet. LK was back in the Cabinet and with his erudition and his commitment he changed the dispirited stance of the armed services. In fairness it must be said that Ranil later mentioned that he did not want to create a crisis at a time when the LTTE was successfully attacking our armed forces.
A critical issue
The ethnic issue has always been modern Sri Lanka’s “elephant in the room”. It has affected the future of every government since independence. However with the ambushing of 13 security personnel by the LTTE and the subsequent communal riots of 1983 under the JRJ dispensation, a shooting war began which sapped the energies of the nation for close on 30 years. From one of the richest nations in Asia which had great promise, Sri Lanka became one of the poorest in the world. Every time an attempt was made to end this impasse with a “ceasefire” Prabhakaran consolidated his position and launched an attack at a time of his own choice citing violations from the government side.
He used the cessation of hostilities to infiltrate Colombo with his suicide bombers as “sleepers”. They were deployed by his spy chief Pottu Amman the head of the intelligence arm of the LTTE. With the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, global sympathy for the LTTE, especially in India, waned. But with the change of tactics by President Premadasa – whose sympathy for marginalized social groups extended to the LTTE – India withdrew from helping us. Premadasa gave the LTTE “deluxe” treatment when they came to Colombo. He also gave then arms to fight the IPKF.
But in the end they spurned him and killed him in a most brutal fashion. CBK was first idolized by the Tamils and she offered the best terms possible to end the conflict because unlike many other leaders she genuinely wanted a fair resolution of the conflict. But the LTTE rejected her offers and eventually attempted to kill her. They launched “The Third Eelam war” within a few months of her coming to office. Her tenure of office was plagued by the uncertainties of war which derailed her best efforts at restructuring our inefficient and statist economy. If peace had been achieved, her economic programme would have transformed the country even before India took steps to reform its economy under Manmohan Singh, Chidambaram and the Reserve Bank Governor Raghu Rajan.
Few countries could sustain a 30-year war and a growing economy. The pity of it was that Ranil too was not a racist. But the pressures on him to deliver a victory for the UNP were so great that he would not cooperate with CBK, as we dissidents had earlier advocated in the party, leading to the view both among Tamils and the western world that the Sinhala majority was the stumbling block to achieving peace. The Tamil diaspora – a trickle which became a flood after “Black July” – became a key player which not only lobbied for the LTTE but increasingly took India’s place as a supplier of sophisticated weaponry for its cadres.
Eastern Europe and East Asia were awash with weapons after Vietnam and Cambodia and the LTTE with its own agents and transportation links became a serious military challenge to the Lankan state. At this stage Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe attempted to break this logjam by seeking western led international intervention. On the advice of Milinda Moragoda he brought in the Norwegians as international mediators. This was based on the theory that an interlocutor who could speak to both sides was necessary at this juncture.
LK, briefed by India, warned against bringing in the Norwegians. They were also resented by the local media but the Norwegians spent much time and money in establishing their Peace Secretariat here. A “ceasefire” was proclaimed. The Japanese also supported this initiative and promoted their famous “Akashi doctrine” whereby they pledged to commit substantial development funds if peace was achieved. A donor meeting was scheduled to be held in Tokyo with the blessings of the US and western countries to take this initiative forward.
Prior to this initiative several meetings of the two sides were held in Thailand and we were represented by GL Peiris, Moragoda and Rauf Hakeem while Anton Balasingham and Karuna led the LTTE delegation. However the LTTE pulled out of the Tokyo meeting at the last minute and the Ranil-Moragoda initiative received a grievous blow. During this period the LTTE was treated with kid gloves by the Ranil regime. They were afforded diplomatic facilities by our missions and the airport authorities led by Bradman Weerakoon ensured that they were given VIP treatment.
But the armed services held that Prabhakaran as usual was using the “interval” to reposition his forces. There was however a strong favourable development in that a conflict ensued between Prabhakaran and Muralitharan [Col. Karuna] which split the LTTE forces. Karuna was Prabhakaran’s “go to guy” who would augment his northern forces when pressed by the army by sending in reinforcements from the east. I can now reveal that Karuna was persuaded by his schoolmate who was a UNP MP from the Eastern Province operating with Ranil’s blessings. Karuna fled “incognito” to Weli Oya avoiding LTTE hitmen who had been detailed to watch and, if necessary, kill him. From there he was brought under cover to a safe house in Colombo. The decline of the LTTE as a fighting force began with Karuna’s defection.
During this period a few of us Parliamentarians were invited to several countries to discuss the peace process. A meeting was held in Norway under the aegis of the Institute that promoted the Arab-Isreali peace talks to discuss the Sri Lankan situation. Among those who participated were myself, Jehan Perera of the Peace Council, Douglas Devananda of the EPDP and Rudrakumaran of the LTTE. Rudrakumaran’s father was a former Mayor of Jaffna and he himself was a product of our Law College and a Sinhala speaker. But the LTTE was intransigent and apart from reading out from the LTTE playbook Rudrakumaran had no suggestions which we could have discussed fruitfully.
Another meeting was held in Tokyo under the auspices of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. However the LTTE was not represented at this meeting. Rukman Senanayake, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Rauf Hakeem and I had meetings with Akashi who had been delegated to push the Sri Lankan peace process. However he was not as successful with us as he was in Cambodia. I had a special meeting with former Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda who has consistently supported Sri Lanka.
(Excerpted from Volume 3 of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography)
Features
The call for review of reforms in education: discussion continues …
The hype around educational reforms has abated slightly, but the scandal of the reforms persists. And in saying scandal, I don’t mean the error of judgement surrounding a misprinted link of an online dating site in a Grade 6 English language text book. While that fiasco took on a nasty, undeserved attack on the Minister of Education and Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, fundamental concerns with the reforms have surfaced since then and need urgent discussion and a mechanism for further analysis and action. Members of Kuppi have been writing on the reforms the past few months, drawing attention to the deeply troubling aspects of the reforms. Just last week, a statement, initiated by Kuppi, and signed by 94 state university teachers, was released to the public, drawing attention to the fundamental problems underlining the reforms https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/. While the furore over the misspelled and misplaced reference and online link raged in the public domain, there were also many who welcomed the reforms, seeing in the package, a way out of the bottle neck that exists today in our educational system, as regards how achievement is measured and the way the highly competitive system has not helped to serve a population divided by social class, gendered functions and diversities in talent and inclinations. However, the reforms need to be scrutinised as to whether they truly address these concerns or move education in a progressive direction aimed at access and equity, as claimed by the state machinery and the Minister… And the answer is a resounding No.
The statement by 94 university teachers deplores the high handed manner in which the reforms were hastily formulated, and without public consultation. It underlines the problems with the substance of the reforms, particularly in the areas of the structure of education, and the content of the text books. The problem lies at the very outset of the reforms, with the conceptual framework. While the stated conceptualisation sounds fancifully democratic, inclusive, grounded and, simultaneously, sensitive, the detail of the reforms-structure itself shows up a scandalous disconnect between the concept and the structural features of the reforms. This disconnect is most glaring in the way the secondary school programme, in the main, the junior and senior secondary school Phase I, is structured; secondly, the disconnect is also apparent in the pedagogic areas, particularly in the content of the text books. The key players of the “Reforms” have weaponised certain seemingly progressive catch phrases like learner- or student-centred education, digital learning systems, and ideas like moving away from exams and text-heavy education, in popularising it in a bid to win the consent of the public. Launching the reforms at a school recently, Dr. Amarasuriya says, and I cite the state-owned broadside Daily News here, “The reforms focus on a student-centered, practical learning approach to replace the current heavily exam-oriented system, beginning with Grade One in 2026 (https://www.facebook.com/reel/1866339250940490). In an address to the public on September 29, 2025, Dr. Amarasuriya sings the praises of digital transformation and the use of AI-platforms in facilitating education (https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14UvTrkbkwW/), and more recently in a slightly modified tone (https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/PM-pledges-safe-tech-driven-digital-education-for-Sri-Lankan-children/108-331699).
The idea of learner- or student-centric education has been there for long. It comes from the thinking of Paulo Freire, Ivan Illyich and many other educational reformers, globally. Freire, in particular, talks of learner-centred education (he does not use the term), as transformative, transformative of the learner’s and teacher’s thinking: an active and situated learning process that transforms the relations inhering in the situation itself. Lev Vygotsky, the well-known linguist and educator, is a fore runner in promoting collaborative work. But in his thought, collaborative work, which he termed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is processual and not goal-oriented, the way teamwork is understood in our pedagogical frameworks; marks, assignments and projects. In his pedagogy, a well-trained teacher, who has substantial knowledge of the subject, is a must. Good text books are important. But I have seen Vygotsky’s idea of ZPD being appropriated to mean teamwork where students sit around and carry out a task already determined for them in quantifying terms. For Vygotsky, the classroom is a transformative, collaborative place.
But in our neo liberal times, learner-centredness has become quick fix to address the ills of a (still existing) hierarchical classroom. What it has actually achieved is reduce teachers to the status of being mere cogs in a machine designed elsewhere: imitative, non-thinking followers of some empty words and guide lines. Over the years, this learner-centred approach has served to destroy teachers’ independence and agency in designing and trying out different pedagogical methods for themselves and their classrooms, make input in the formulation of the curriculum, and create a space for critical thinking in the classroom.
Thus, when Dr. Amarasuriya says that our system should not be over reliant on text books, I have to disagree with her (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/29/education-reform-to-end-textbook-tyranny ). The issue is not with over reliance, but with the inability to produce well formulated text books. And we are now privy to what this easy dismissal of text books has led us into – the rabbit hole of badly formulated, misinformed content. I quote from the statement of the 94 university teachers to illustrate my point.
“The textbooks for the Grade 6 modules . . . . contain rampant typographical errors and include (some undeclared) AI-generated content, including images that seem distant from the student experience. Some textbooks contain incorrect or misleading information. The Global Studies textbook associates specific facial features, hair colour, and skin colour, with particular countries and regions, and refers to Indigenous peoples in offensive terms long rejected by these communities (e.g. “Pygmies”, “Eskimos”). Nigerians are portrayed as poor/agricultural and with no electricity. The Entrepreneurship and Financial Literacy textbook introduces students to “world famous entrepreneurs”, mostly men, and equates success with business acumen. Such content contradicts the policy’s stated commitment to “values of equity, inclusivity and social justice” (p. 9). Is this the kind of content we want in our textbooks?”
Where structure is concerned, it is astounding to note that the number of subjects has increased from the previous number, while the duration of a single period has considerably reduced. This is markedly noticeable in the fact that only 30 hours are allocated for mathematics and first language at the junior secondary level, per term. The reduced emphasis on social sciences and humanities is another matter of grave concern. We have seen how TV channels and YouTube videos are churning out questionable and unsubstantiated material on the humanities. In my experience, when humanities and social sciences are not properly taught, and not taught by trained teachers, students, who will have no other recourse for related knowledge, will rely on material from controversial and substandard outlets. These will be their only source. So, instruction in history will be increasingly turned over to questionable YouTube channels and other internet sites. Popular media have an enormous influence on the public and shapes thinking, but a well formulated policy in humanities and social science teaching could counter that with researched material and critical thought. Another deplorable feature of the reforms lies in provisions encouraging students to move toward a career path too early in their student life.
The National Institute of Education has received quite a lot of flak in the fall out of the uproar over the controversial Grade 6 module. This is highlighted in a statement, different from the one already mentioned, released by influential members of the academic and activist public, which delivered a sharp critique of the NIE, even while welcoming the reforms (https://ceylontoday.lk/2026/01/16/academics-urge-govt-safeguard-integrity-of-education-reforms). The government itself suspended key players of the NIE in the reform process, following the mishap. The critique of NIE has been more or less uniform in our own discussions with interested members of the university community. It is interesting to note that both statements mentioned here have called for a review of the NIE and the setting up of a mechanism that will guide it in its activities at least in the interim period. The NIE is an educational arm of the state, and it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the government to oversee its function. It has to be equipped with qualified staff, provided with the capacity to initiate consultative mechanisms and involve panels of educators from various different fields and disciplines in policy and curriculum making.
In conclusion, I call upon the government to have courage and patience and to rethink some of the fundamental features of the reform. I reiterate the call for postponing the implementation of the reforms and, in the words of the statement of the 94 university teachers, “holistically review the new curriculum, including at primary level.”
(Sivamohan Sumathy was formerly attached to the 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.
By Sivamohan Sumathy
Features
Constitutional Council and the President’s Mandate
The Constitutional Council stands out as one of Sri Lanka’s most important governance mechanisms particularly at a time when even long‑established democracies are struggling with the dangers of executive overreach. Sri Lanka’s attempt to balance democratic mandate with independent oversight places it within a small but important group of constitutional arrangements that seek to protect the integrity of key state institutions without paralysing elected governments. Democratic power must be exercised, but it must also be restrained by institutions that command broad confidence. In each case, performance has been uneven, but the underlying principle is shared.
Comparable mechanisms exist in a number of democracies. In the United Kingdom, independent appointments commissions for the judiciary and civil service operate alongside ministerial authority, constraining but not eliminating political discretion. In Canada, parliamentary committees scrutinise appointments to oversight institutions such as the Auditor General, whose independence is regarded as essential to democratic accountability. In India, the collegium system for judicial appointments, in which senior judges of the Supreme Court play the decisive role in recommending appointments, emerged from a similar concern to insulate the judiciary from excessive political influence.
The Constitutional Council in Sri Lanka was developed to ensure that the highest level appointments to the most important institutions of the state would be the best possible under the circumstances. The objective was not to deny the executive its authority, but to ensure that those appointed would be independent, suitably qualified and not politically partisan. The Council is entrusted with oversight of appointments in seven critical areas of governance. These include the judiciary, through appointments to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the independent commissions overseeing elections, public service, police, human rights, bribery and corruption, and the office of the Auditor General.
JVP Advocacy
The most outstanding feature of the Constitutional Council is its composition. Its ten members are drawn from the ranks of the government, the main opposition party, smaller parties and civil society. This plural composition was designed to reflect the diversity of political opinion in Parliament while also bringing in voices that are not directly tied to electoral competition. It reflects a belief that legitimacy in sensitive appointments comes not only from legal authority but also from inclusion and balance.
The idea of the Constitutional Council was strongly promoted around the year 2000, during a period of intense debate about the concentration of power in the executive presidency. Civil society organisations, professional bodies and sections of the legal community championed the position that unchecked executive authority had led to abuse of power and declining public trust. The JVP, which is today the core part of the NPP government, was among the political advocates in making the argument and joined the government of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga on this platform.
The first version of the Constitutional Council came into being in 2001 with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution during the presidency of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. The Constitutional Council functioned with varying degrees of effectiveness. There were moments of cooperation and also moments of tension. On several occasions President Kumaratunga disagreed with the views of the Constitutional Council, leading to deadlock and delays in appointments. These experiences revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of the model.
Since its inception in 2001, the Constitutional Council has had its ups and downs. Successive constitutional amendments have alternately weakened and strengthened it. The 18th Amendment significantly reduced its authority, restoring much of the appointment power to the executive. The 19th Amendment reversed this trend and re-established the Council with enhanced powers. The 20th Amendment again curtailed its role, while the 21st Amendment restored a measure of balance. At present, the Constitutional Council operates under the framework of the 21st Amendment, which reflects a renewed commitment to shared decision making in key appointments.
Undermining Confidence
The particular issue that has now come to the fore concerns the appointment of the Auditor General. This is a constitutionally protected position, reflecting the central role played by the Auditor General’s Department in monitoring public spending and safeguarding public resources. Without a credible and fearless audit institution, parliamentary oversight can become superficial and corruption flourishes unchecked. The role of the Auditor General’s Department is especially important in the present circumstances, when rooting out corruption is a stated priority of the government and a central element of the mandate it received from the electorate at the presidential and parliamentary elections held in 2024.
So far, the government has taken hitherto unprecedented actions to investigate past corruption involving former government leaders. These actions have caused considerable discomfort among politicians now in the opposition and out of power. However, a serious lacuna in the government’s anti-corruption arsenal is that the post of Auditor General has been vacant for over six months. No agreement has been reached between the government and the Constitutional Council on the nominations made by the President. On each of the four previous occasions, the nominees of the President have failed to obtain its concurrence.
The President has once again nominated a senior officer of the Auditor General’s Department whose appointment was earlier declined by the Constitutional Council. The key difference on this occasion is that the composition of the Constitutional Council has changed. The three representatives from civil society are new appointees and may take a different view from their predecessors. The person appointed needs to be someone who is not compromised by long years of association with entrenched interests in the public service and politics. The task ahead for the new Auditor General is formidable. What is required is professional competence combined with moral courage and institutional independence.
New Opportunity
By submitting the same nominee to the Constitutional Council, the President is signaling a clear preference and calling it to reconsider its earlier decision in the light of changed circumstances. If the President’s nominee possesses the required professional qualifications, relevant experience, and no substantiated allegations against her, the presumption should lean toward approving the appointment. The Constitutional Council is intended to moderate the President’s authority and not nullify it.
A consensual, collegial decision would be the best outcome. Confrontational postures may yield temporary political advantage, but they harm public institutions and erode trust. The President and the government carry the democratic mandate of the people; this mandate brings both authority and responsibility. The Constitutional Council plays a vital oversight role, but it does not possess an independent democratic mandate of its own and its legitimacy lies in balanced, principled decision making.
Sri Lanka’s experience, like that of many democracies, shows that institutions function best when guided by restraint, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the public good. The erosion of these values elsewhere in the world demonstrates their importance. At this critical moment, reaching a consensus that respects both the President’s mandate and the Constitutional Council’s oversight role would send a powerful message that constitutional governance in Sri Lanka can work as intended.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Gypsies … flying high
The scene has certainly changed for the Gypsies and today one could consider them as awesome crowd-pullers, with plenty of foreign tours, making up their itinerary.
With the demise of Sunil Perera, music lovers believed that the Gypsies would find the going tough in the music scene as he was their star, and, in fact, Sri Lanka’s number one entertainer/singer,
Even his brother Piyal Perera, who is now in charge of the Gypsies, admitted that after Sunil’s death he was in two minds about continuing with the band.
However, the scene started improving for the Gypsies, and then stepped in Shenal Nishshanka, in December 2022, and that was the turning point,
With Shenal in their lineup, Piyal then decided to continue with the Gypsies, but, he added, “I believe I should check out our progress in the scene…one year at a time.”

The original Gypsies: The five brothers Lal, Nimal, Sunil, Nihal and Piyal
They had success the following year, 2023, and then decided that they continue in 2024, as well, and more success followed.
The year 2025 opened up with plenty of action for the band, including several foreign assignments, and 2026 has already started on an awesome note, with a tour of Australia and New Zealand, which will keep the Gypsies in that part of the world, from February to March.
Shenal has already turned out to be a great crowd puller, and music lovers in Australia and New Zealand can look forward to some top class entertainment from both Shenal and Piyal.
Piyal, who was not much in the spotlight when Sunil was in the scene, is now very much upfront, supporting Shenal, and they do an awesome job on stage … keeping the audience entertained.
Shenal is, in fact, a rocker, who plays the guitar, and is extremely creative on stage with his baila.

‘Api Denna’ Piyal and Shenal
Piyal and Shenal also move into action as a duo ‘Api Denna’ and have even done their duo scene abroad.
Piyal mentioned that the Gypsies will feature a female vocalist during their tour of New Zealand.
“With Monique Wille’s departure from the band, we now operate without a female vocalist, but if a female vocalist is required for certain events, we get a solo female singer involved, as a guest artiste. She does her own thing and we back her, and New Zealand requested for a female vocalist and Dilmi will be doing the needful for us,” said Piyal.
According to Piyal, he originally had plans to end the Gypsies in the year 2027 but with the demand for the Gypsies at a very high level now those plans may not work out, he says.
-
Opinion5 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business6 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Business4 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business4 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business4 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business17 hours agoSLIM-Kantar People’s Awards 2026 to recognise Sri Lanka’s most trusted brands and personalities
-
Business3 days agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business3 days agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition

