Features
The LNG Saga – Some unanswered questions! Urgent responses needed
By Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe
E Mail: parajayasighe@gmail.com
There is euphoria in the government circles about the deal with New Fortress Energy of USA, (NFE) for the sale of 40% share of the West Coast Power Ltd., which currently operates the 300 MW power plant in Kerawalapitiya for a princely sum of US $ 250,000,000. The present ownership of this company stands as
Treasury 50%
Employers Provident Fund 27%
Lanka Electricity Company 18%
Lanka Transformers Ltd 05%
The plant is operated by Lanka Transformers Ltd.
At a time when Sri Lanka is scraping the bottom of the barrel to pay for the imported essentials including fuel, this would appear to be manna from heaven, even though it is not clear when this money will be received. Looking at the share ownership, there does not seem to be any impediment to the Treasury’s right to sell the 40% share although this may be considered as the sale of a national asset, which the current leaders vowed not to do.
Has anyone taken the trouble to check on the financial strength of NFE? Can the company raise not only this $ 250 million but what might also be another $ 150 million required for the setting up of the FSRU and the pipelines?
However, the icing on the cake seems to go sour when the conditions attached to this sale are looked at in detail. The only source of information is the copies of the Cabinet papers submitted by the Ministry of Finance, which are reported to have been approved by the Cabinet without any division. Considering the complex nature of the NG supply market and, moreover, the most convoluted presentation as seen in this Cabinet paper, the rest of the Cabinet may be excused for taking the easy path of just raising hands instead of courting a massive headache by trying to wade through this document to get some sense.
But the Cabinet decisions, if implemented, will affect every citizen adversely and, as explained below, and it could be a disaster for Sri Lanka. It is very unfortunate that none of the government ministers or MPs or those in the Opposition commenting on this deal has gone beyond the mere sale of shares and the fact that the agreement has been signed at midnight, which is the least of our problems.
I would like to pose some questions that are not answered clearly in the Cabinet memo:
1. Cabinet approval is sought to enter into a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement and to amend the conditions of the already signed Frame Work Agreement signed in July 2021. But no details of this FA and the proposed amendments are known.
2. Approval is also sought to enter into a Gas Supply Term Sheet (GSTS) as per paragraph 5.3 to be a part of the SSPA. This is where the hidden problems lie as described later.
3. Providing extensive tax relief which was not given for the open tender called for by the CEB and is under evaluation
There has been an attempt to compare the numbers quoted for the eventual cost of gas from NFE, with the current tender under evaluation. But as pointed out by the engineers of the CEB, this is comparing oranges with apples and the ethic of using such data for this comparison is also being questioned. The fact that there is a difference between the two does not qualify for either to be accepted without due consideration of the realities and their impact on Sri Lanka.

However, to come to the crux of the matter, the government of Sri Lanka, which approved the construction of a 350 MW LNG powered power plant, without a clue as to how the gas is to be supplied, has painted itself in to a corner. The lack of foresight in approving this project which was tendered for as far back as 2016, without many changes in the parameters applicable being taken into consideration, the cost of LNG being the primary issue, is a matter for a separate discussion. The NFE offer was apparent ly pounced upon to get out of such an embarrassing situation, with scant attention to the underlying dangers.
But the most worrisome element of the proposed gas supply agreement is the acceptance of the Take or Pay (TOP) condition without due consideration of its implications which are horrendous as explained below. However, it is the duty of the buyer or the lessee to carefully evaluate the ability or the need for the purchase of such agreed amounts.
The condition stipulates that the buyer should pay for the entire agreed amount of gas even if it is not needed or not possible to be used. This is exactly what would happen to us with a massive financial loss if this agreement goes through.
However, Sri Lanka is in a disadvantageous position in that our need for LNG falls far below the amounts considered viable by the reputed companies in the field thus limiting the possibility of reliable competitive tender. Even though less than what would be expected by the big players, the amount claimed as TOP by NFE is well beyond our ability to purchase and we will be falling into a trap from which there is no means of extracting ourselves.
The numbers tell the story
The NFE demands a TOP amount of 175 MMBTU over five years. The standard unit of supply is a Million British Thermal Unit). Although the documents available have not specifically stated amounts, let us assume this amounts to 35 MMBTU per year.
What are our consumption needs? The only use possible in the short term is the conversion of the 300 MW WCPL plant currently operating on Furnace Oil. As such, we can expect it to be converted as soon as the FSRU and the pipelines are installed and operational. But how much can we consume? An expert in the field has quoted a figure of only 13 MMBTU per year. So, until the Sobhadhanavi aplant of 350 MW is completed, we will have to pay for the balance 22 MMBTU of gas even if it is not supplied.

Once the Sobhahdhnavi plant is operational hopefully in two years, it will require a further 12 MMBTU according to the expert, totaling the demand only to 25 MMBTU, and Sri Lanka having to continue to pay for 10 MMBTU for the duration of the five-year project period currently agreed upon with NFE. There are proposals to covert the units at Kerawalapitiya, too. But this would take years and until such time we will be paying out millions of dollars every year with no benefits.
What does it mean in monetary terms, as this proposal provided monopoly rights of supply of gas also to NEF? The numbers here are even more dubious and couched in conflicting statements.
Three different modes of pricing the Gas supplies are stated:
= Henry Hub price times 115% + 5.01 $ per MMBTU
= JKM Price + 1.15 $ per MMBTU
= Any other mode of supply to be selected by the buyer
There is no firm statement anywhere in the Cabinet Memo as to which system is applicable and when.
These are highly divergent prices with a differential of over 100%. So, let us be optimistic that the Henry Hub Formula will be adopted.
The Henry Hum is the trading exchange for natural gas in the US and is currently running at about $ 5.00 per MMBTU. The JKM price is the Asian market price, which is currently ranging in the order of US$ 27 per MBTU. These numbers can be seen daily on the Internet. The recent predictions of HH prices are illustrated below. (See the graph.) It is on a steep rising trend.
Let us use an optimistic value of US $ 5.00 per MBTU as the HH price
As such the option using HH would yield a supply price of 5 x 115% + 5.01 = $ 10.76 per MBTU
It is not clear if we are to pay the regasification cost of $ 1.45 per MBTU even for the gas we don’t , which will take this up to $ 12.21 per MBTU
As stated above, until the Sobhadhanavi plant is commissioned, we will have to pay for 22 Million M BTU gas, not supplied at a price of $ 10.76 amounting to a staggering $ 236.72 Million in the first year of operation itself and at US $ 109.6 Million for the balance four years, assuming that the HH gas prices do not change.
When these numbers are considered, the offer of US $ 250 Million loses its lustre. It is a case of the Greeks bearing gifts.
I would love to be proven wrong at least on this count, ignoring the many other reasons given below as to why a very serious look has to be taken on the whole equation of the use of LNG.
Impact on the 70% RE target
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has told the whole world, in his recent address to the UN, that Sri Lanka will achieve a 70% contribution from renewable energy sources by 2030. Let us hope that at least now there will be no further attempts to say that this is not the government policy.
What does this mean on the ground? The Table 1 spells it out:
Therefore, allowing for the retirement of some plants which are reaching the end of their economic life, the only feasible addition of fossil fuel would be the 350 MW Sobhadhanavi LNG plant currently under construction. So, there is no possibility of adding any more LNG plants or even converting the plants at Kelanitissa to LNG to bridge the gap of oversupply, without grossly violating the target of 70 % contribution of renewable energy by 2030.
The CEB has been directed by the Ministry of Power to submit its corrected Long-Term Generation Plan, which meets the 70% RE target. It would be interesting to see what they come out with, and their commitments to national policy, not to mention a genuine effort to get out of the financial mess that it is in. Maximizing the renewables even beyond the 70% target is their only hope.
Barriers to the development of Mannar Gas and Oil resource
This is a matter that cannot be ignored. When there are attempts to attract investors to develop this proven resource, handing over the monopoly of supply of LNG to NFE even for five years is most foolhardy. A developer would first look at the guaranteed offtake of the extracted gas as the greatest incentive and mitigation of risk of the investment. When we are blocking that very option by this ill-conceived deal, we are foreclosing the possibility of developing this valuable resource for ever.
It is heartening to hear that Minister of Energy Udaya Gammanpila has already objected to the proposal to give monopoly on gas imports to NFE even for five years. We hope that his views will be taken on board.
This is an appeal to all politicians on both sides as well as the professionals to evaluate the validity of the above concerns and prevent the impending disaster.
Features
The US-China rivalry and challenges facing the South
The US-China rivalry could be said to make-up the ‘stuff and substance’ of world politics today but rarely does the international politics watcher and student of the global South in particular get the opportunity of having a balanced and comprehensive evaluation of this crucial relationship. But such a balanced assessment is vitally instrumental in making sense of current world power relations.
Thanks to the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo the above window of opportunity was opened on December 8th for those sections of the public zealously pursuing an understanding of current issues in global politics. The knowledge came via a forum that was conducted at the RCSS titled, ‘The US-China Rivalry and Implications for the Indo-Pacific’, where Professor Neil DeVotta of the Wake Forest University of North Carolina in the US, featured as the speaker.
A widely representative audience was present at the forum, including senior public servants, the diplomatic corps, academics, heads of civil society organizations, senior armed forces personnel and the media. The event was ably managed by the Executive Director of the RCSS, retired ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha. Following the main presentation a lively Q&A session followed, where many a point of interest was aired and discussed.
While there is no doubt that China is fast catching up with the US with regard to particularly military, economic, scientific and technological capability, Prof. DeVotta helped to balance this standard projection of ‘China’s steady rise’ by pointing to some vital facts about China, the omission of which would amount to the observer having a somewhat uninformed perception of global political realities.
The following are some of the facts about contemporary China that were highlighted by Prof. DeVotta:
* Money is steadily moving out of China and the latter’ s economy is slowing down. In fact the country is in a ‘ Middle Income Trap’. That is, it has reached middle income status but has failed to move to upper income status since then.
* People in marked numbers are moving out of China. It is perhaps little known that some Chinese are seeking to enter the US with a view to living there. The fact is that China’s population too is on the decline.
* Although the private sector is operative in China, there has been an increase in Parastatals; that is, commercial organizations run by the state are also very much in the fore. In fact private enterprises have begun to have ruling Communist Party cells in them.
* China is at its ‘peak power’ but this fact may compel it to act ‘aggressively’ in the international sphere. For instance, it may be compelled to invade Taiwan.
* A Hard Authoritarianism could be said to characterize central power in China today, whereas the expectation in some quarters is that it would shift to a Soft Authoritarian system, as is the case in Singapore.
* China’s influence in the West is greater than it has ever been.
The speaker was equally revelatory about the US today. Just a few of these observations are:
* The US is in a ‘Unipolar Moment’. That is, it is the world’s prime power. Such positions are usually not longstanding but in the case of the US this position has been enjoyed by it for quite a while.
* China is seen by the US as a ‘Revisionist Power’ as opposed to being a ‘Status Quo Power.’ That is China is for changing the world system slowly.
* The US in its latest national security strategy is paying little attention to Soft Power as opposed to Hard Power.
* In terms of this strategy the US would not allow any single country to dominate the Asia-Pacific region.
* The overall tone of this strategy is that the US should step back and allow regional powers to play a greater role in international politics.
* The strategy also holds that the US must improve economic ties with India, but there is very little mention of China in the plan.
Given these observations on the current international situation, a matter of the foremost importance for the economically weakest countries of the South is to figure out how best they could survive materially within it. Today there is no cohesive and vibrant collective organization that could work towards the best interests of the developing world and Dr. DeVotta was more or less correct when he said that the Non-alignment Movement (NAM) has declined.
However, this columnist is of the view that rather being a spent force, NAM was allowed to die out by the South. NAM as an idea could never become extinct as long as economic and material inequalities between North and South exist. Needless to say, this situation is remaining unchanged since the eighties when NAM allowed itself to be a non-entity so to speak in world affairs.
The majority of Southern countries did not do themselves any good by uncritically embracing the ‘market economy’ as a panacea for their ills. As has been proved, this growth paradigm only aggravated the South’s development ills, except for a few states within its fold.
Considering that the US would be preferring regional powers to play a more prominent role in the international economy and given the US’ preference to be a close ally of India, the weakest of the South need to look into the possibility of tying up closely with India and giving the latter a substantive role in advocating the South’s best interests in the councils of the world.
To enable this to happen the South needs to ‘get organized’ once again. The main differences between the past and the present with regard to Southern affairs is that in the past the South had outstanding leaders, such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India, who could doughtily stand up for it. As far as this columnist could ascertain, it is the lack of exceptional leaders that in the main led to the decline of NAM and other South-centred organizations.
Accordingly, an urgent task for the South is to enable the coming into being of exceptional leaders who could work untiringly towards the realization of its just needs, such as economic equity. Meanwhile, Southern countries would do well to, indeed, follow the principles of NAM and relate cordially with all the major powers so as to realizing their best interests.
Features
Sri Lanka and Global Climate Emergency: Lessons of Cyclone Ditwah
Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which made landfall in Sri Lanka on 28 November 2025, is considered the country’s worst natural disaster since the deadly 2004 tsunami. It intensified the northeast monsoon, bringing torrential rainfall, massive flooding, and 215 severe landslides across seven districts. The cyclone left a trail of destruction, killing nearly 500 people, displacing over a million, destroying homes, roads, and railway lines, and disabling critical infrastructure including 4,000 transmission towers. Total economic losses are estimated at USD 6–7 billion—exceeding the country’s foreign reserves.
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces have led the relief efforts, aided by international partners including India and Pakistan. A Sri Lanka Air Force helicopter crashed in Wennappuwa, killing the pilot and injuring four others, while five Sri Lanka Navy personnel died in Chundikkulam in the north while widening waterways to mitigate flooding. The bravery and sacrifice of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces during this disaster—as in past disasters—continue to be held in high esteem by grateful Sri Lankans.
The Sri Lankan government, however, is facing intense criticism for its handling of Cyclone Ditwah, including failure to heed early warnings available since November 12, a slow and poorly coordinated response, and inadequate communication with the public. Systemic issues—underinvestment in disaster management, failure to activate protocols, bureaucratic neglect, and a lack of coordination among state institutions—are also blamed for avoidable deaths and destruction.
The causes of climate disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah go far beyond disaster preparedness. Faulty policymaking, mismanagement, and decades of unregulated economic development have eroded the island’s natural defenses. As climate scientist Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe notes:
“Sri Lankan wetlands—the nation’s most effective natural flood-control mechanism—have been bulldosed, filled, encroached upon, and sold. Many of these developments were approved despite warnings from environmental scientists, hydrologists, and even state institutions.”
Sri Lanka’s current vulnerabilities also stem from historical deforestation and plantation agriculture associated with colonial-era export development. Forest cover declined from 82% in 1881 to 70% in 1900, and to 54–50% by 1948, when British rule ended. It fell further to 44% in 1954 and to 16.5% by 2019.
Deforestation contributes an estimated 10–12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond removing a vital carbon sink, it damages water resources, increases runoff and erosion, and heightens flood and landslide risk. Soil-depleting monocrop agriculture further undermines traditional multi-crop systems that regenerate soil fertility, organic matter, and biodiversity.
In Sri Lanka’s Central Highlands, which were battered by Cyclone Ditwah, deforestation and unregulated construction had destabilised mountain slopes. Although high-risk zones prone to floods and landslides had long been identified, residents were not relocated, and construction and urbanisation continued unchecked.
Sri Lanka was the first country in Asia to adopt neoliberal economic policies. With the “Open Economy” reforms of 1977, a capitalist ideology equating human well-being with quantitative growth and material consumption became widespread. Development efforts were rushed, poorly supervised, and frequently approved without proper environmental assessment.
Privatisation and corporate deregulation weakened state oversight. The recent economic crisis and shrinking budgets further eroded environmental and social protections, including the maintenance of drainage networks, reservoirs, and early-warning systems. These forces have converged to make Sri Lanka a victim of a dual climate threat: gradual environmental collapse and sudden-onset disasters.
Sri Lanka: A Climate Victim
Sri Lanka’s carbon emissions remain relatively small but are rising. The impact of climate change on the island, however, is immense. Annual mean air temperature has increased significantly in recent decades (by 0.016 °C annually between 1961 and 1990). Sea-level rise has caused severe coastal erosion—0.30–0.35 meters per year—affecting nearly 55% of the shoreline. The 2004 tsunami demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of low-lying coastal plains to rising seas.
The Cyclone Ditwah catastrophe was neither wholly new nor surprising. In 2015, the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) identified Sri Lanka as the South Asian country with the highest relative risk of disaster-related displacement: “For every million inhabitants, 15,000 are at risk of being displaced every year.”
IDMC also noted that in 2017 the country experienced seven disaster events—mainly floods and landslides—resulting in 135,000 new displacements and that Sri Lanka “is also at risk for slow-onset impacts such as soil degradation, saltwater intrusion, water scarcity, and crop failure”.
Sri Lanka ranked sixth among countries most affected by extreme weather events in 2018 (Germanwatch) and second in 2019 (Global Climate Risk Index). Given these warnings, Cyclone Ditwah should not have been a surprise. Scientists have repeatedly cautioned that warmer oceans fuel stronger cyclones and warmer air holds more moisture, leading to extreme rainfall. As the Ceylon Today editorial of December 1, 2025 also observed:
“…our monsoons are no longer predictable. Cyclones form faster, hit harder, and linger longer. Rainfall becomes erratic, intense, and destructive. This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.”
Without urgent action, even more extreme weather events will threaten Sri Lanka’s habitability and physical survival.
A Global Crisis
Extreme weather events—droughts, wildfires, cyclones, and floods—are becoming the global norm. Up to 1.2 billion people could become “climate refugees” by 2050. Global warming is disrupting weather patterns, destabilising ecosystems, and posing severe risks to life on Earth. Indonesia and Thailand were struck by the rare and devastating Tropical Cyclone Senyar in late November 2025, occurring simultaneously with Cyclone Ditwah’s landfall in Sri Lanka.
More than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions—and nearly 90% of carbon emissions—come from burning coal, oil, and gas, which supply about 80% of the world’s energy. Countries in the Global South, like Sri Lanka, which contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions, are among the most vulnerable to climate devastation. Yet wealthy nations and multilateral institutions, including the World Bank, continue to subsidise fossil fuel exploration and production. Global climate policymaking—including COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, in 2025—has been criticised as ineffectual and dominated by fossil fuel interests.
If the climate is not stabilised, long-term planetary forces beyond human control may be unleashed. Technology and markets are not inherently the problem; rather, the issue lies in the intentions guiding them. The techno-market worldview, which promotes the belief that well-being increases through limitless growth and consumption, has contributed to severe economic inequality and more frequent extreme weather events. The climate crisis, in turn, reflects a profound mismatch between the exponential expansion of a profit-driven global economy and the far slower evolution of human consciousness needed to uphold morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom.
Sri Lanka’s 2025–26 budget, adopted on November 14, 2025—just as Cyclone Ditwah loomed—promised subsidised land and electricity for companies establishing AI data centers in the country.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake told Parliament: “Don’t come questioning us on why we are giving land this cheap; we have to make these sacrifices.”
Yet Sri Lanka is a highly water-stressed nation, and a growing body of international research shows that AI data centers consume massive amounts of water and electricity, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
The failure of the narrow, competitive techno-market approach underscores the need for an ecological and collective framework capable of addressing the deeper roots of this existential crisis—both for Sri Lanka and the world.

A landslide in Sri Lanka (AFP picture)
Ecological and Human Protection
Ecological consciousness demands
recognition that humanity is part of the Earth, not separate from it. Policies to address climate change must be grounded in this understanding, rather than in worldviews that prize infinite growth and technological dominance. Nature has primacy over human-created systems: the natural world does not depend on humanity, while humanity cannot survive without soil, water, air, sunlight, and the Earth’s essential life-support systems.
Although a climate victim today, Sri Lanka is also home to an ancient ecological civilization dating back to the arrival of the Buddhist monk Mahinda Thera in the 3rd century BCE. Upon meeting King Devanampiyatissa, who was out hunting in Mihintale, Mahinda Thera delivered one of the earliest recorded teachings on ecological interdependence and the duty of rulers to protect nature:
“O great King, the birds of the air and the beasts of the forest have as much right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the people and all living beings; thou art only its guardian.”
A stone inscription at Mihintale records that the king forbade the killing of animals and the destruction of trees. The Mihintale Wildlife Sanctuary is believed to be the world’s first.
Sri Lanka’s ancient dry-zone irrigation system—maintained over more than a millennium—stands as a marvel of sustainable development. Its network of interconnected reservoirs, canals, and sluices captured monsoon waters, irrigated fields, controlled floods, and even served as a defensive barrier. Floods occurred, but historical records show no disasters comparable in scale, severity, or frequency to those of today. Ancient rulers, including the legendary reservoir-builder King Parākramabāhu, and generations of rice farmers managed their environment with remarkable discipline and ecological wisdom.
The primacy of nature became especially evident when widespread power outages and the collapse of communication networks during Cyclone Ditwah forced people to rely on one another for survival. The disaster ignited spontaneous acts of compassion and solidarity across all communities—men and women, rich and poor, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. Local and international efforts mobilized to rescue, shelter, feed, and emotionally support those affected. These actions demonstrated a profound human instinct for care and cooperation, often filling vacuums left by formal emergency systems.
Yet spontaneous solidarity alone is insufficient. Sri Lanka urgently needs policies on sustainable development, environmental protection, and climate resilience. These include strict, science-based regulation of construction; protection of forests and wetlands; proper maintenance of reservoirs; and climate-resilient infrastructure. Schools should teach environmental literacy that builds unity and solidarity, rather than controversial and divisive curriculum changes like the planned removal of history and introduction of contested modules on gender and sexuality.
If the IMF and international creditors—especially BlackRock, Sri Lanka’s largest sovereign bondholder, valued at USD 13 trillion—are genuinely concerned about the country’s suffering, could they not cancel at least some of Sri Lanka’s sovereign debt and support its rebuilding efforts? Addressing the climate emergency and the broader existential crisis facing Sri Lanka and the world ultimately requires an evolution in human consciousness guided by morality, compassion, generosity and wisdom. (Courtesy: IPS NEWS)
Dr Asoka Bandarage is the author of Colonialism in Sri Lanka: The Political Economy of the Kandyan Highlands, 1833-1886 (Mouton) Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Politico-Economic Analysis (Zed Books), The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, ( Routledge), Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy (Palgrave MacMillan) Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World: Colonial and Neoliberal Origins, Ecological and Collective Alternatives (De Gruyter) and numerous other publications. She serves on the Advisory Boards of the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate and Critical Asian Studies.
Features
Cliff and Hank recreate golden era of ‘The Young Ones’
Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin’s reunion concert at the Riverside Theatre in Perth, Australia, on 01 November, 2025, was a night to remember.
The duo, who first performed together in the 1950s as part of The Shadows, brought the house down with their classic hits and effortless chemistry.
The concert, part of Cliff’s ‘Can’t Stop Me Now’ tour, featured iconic songs like ‘Summer Holiday’, ‘The Young Ones’, ‘Bachelor Boy’, ‘Living Doll’ and a powerful rendition of ‘Mistletoe and Wine.’
Cliff, 85, and Hank, with his signature red Fender Stratocaster, proved that their music and friendship are timeless.
According to reports, the moment the lights dimmed and the first chords of ‘Move It’ rang out, the crowd knew they were in for something extraordinary.
Backed by a full band, and surrounded by dazzling visuals, Cliff strode onto the stage in immaculate form – energetic and confident – and when Hank Marvin joined him mid-set, guitar in hand, the audience erupted in applause that shook the hall.
Together they launched into ‘The Young Ones’, their timeless 1961 hit which brought the crowd to its feet, with many in attendance moved to tears.
The audience was treated to a journey through time, with vintage film clips and state-of-the-art visuals adding to the nostalgic atmosphere.
Highlights of the evening included Cliff’s powerful vocals, Hank’s distinctive guitar riffs, and their playful banter on stage.

Cliff posing for The Island photographer … February,
2007
Cliff paused between songs to reflect on their shared journey saying:
“It’s been a lifetime of songs, memories, and friendship. Hank and I started this adventure when we were just boys — and look at us now, still up here making noise!”
As the final chords of ‘Congratulations’ filled the theatre, the crowd rose for a thunderous standing ovation that lasted several minutes.
Cliff waved, Hank gave a humble bow, and, together, they left the stage, arm-in-arm, to the refrain of “We’re the young ones — and we always will be.”
Reviews of the show were glowing, with fans and critics alike praising the duo’s energy, camaraderie, and enduring talent.
Overall, the Cliff Richard and Hank Marvin reunion concert was a truly special experience, celebrating the music and friendship that has captivated audiences for decades.
When Cliff Richard visited Sri Lanka, in February, 2007, I was invited to meet him, in his suite, at a hotel, in Colombo, and I presented him with my music page, which carried his story, and he was impressed.
In return, he personally autographed a souvenir for me … that was Cliff Richard, a truly wonderful human being.
-
News4 days agoOver 35,000 drug offenders nabbed in 36 days
-
Features2 days agoFinally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight
-
News3 days agoCyclone Ditwah leaves Sri Lanka’s biodiversity in ruins: Top scientist warns of unseen ecological disaster
-
Business6 days agoLOLC Finance Factoring powers business growth
-
News6 days agoCPC delegation meets JVP for talks on disaster response
-
News6 days agoA 6th Year Accolade: The Eternal Opulence of My Fair Lady
-
News4 days agoRising water level in Malwathu Oya triggers alert in Thanthirimale
-
Features5 days agoThe Catastrophic Impact of Tropical Cyclone Ditwah on Sri Lanka:
