Opinion

Sri Lanka in Lee Kuan Yew’s words

Published

4 years ago

2022/04/22

Prime Minister and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew presenting gifts to President of Sri Lanka Junius Richard (J R) Jayewardene (back to camera), who is on a one-day stopover in Singapore after attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney, during dinner in honour of the visiting Sri Lankan leader at Mandarin Hotel in Orchard Road. Image courtesy of Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore

By Hasala Perera

It is often said that Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) once considered Sri Lanka as a development model, but no one has questioned the veracity of this claim, and it will be interesting to see what he has said about Sri Lanka.

LKY’s views about Sri Lanka have been published in three books, one is his memoirs, ‘From Third World to First’, second in a compilation of his speeches titled ‘LKY -The man and his ideas’ and ‘Giants of Asia – Conversations with LKY’, which contains interviews American journalist Tom Plate had with LKY.

In his book, ‘From Third World to First’, LKY has dedicated an entire chapter to his views of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and it titled ‘South Asia’s Legends and Leaders’ and seven out of these 22 pages are devoted to Sri Lanka.

For easy reference, ‘From Third World To First’ as [1], ‘LKY – Man and his ideas’ is mentioned as [2], and ‘Giants of Asia – Conversations with LKY’ as [3] with the corresponding page number where appropriate. It is important to note here that LKY refers to the country both as Ceylon and Sri Lanka.

LKY’s first Impression

LKY visited Sri Lanka on four occasions. His first visit was in 1956 and during each visit he had happened to meet a new leader in the country.

He states that ‘Ceylon was Britain’s model commonwealth country’ [1, p 461] and that ‘Ceylon had more resources and better infrastructure than Singapore’ [1, p 460], he attributes this to Lord Mountbatten’s presence in Kandy [ibid], which could be some proof that he had a positive outlook of Sri Lanka and wished if Singapore had the same infrastructure as Sri Lanka.

He was full of praise of the capital city Colombo when he states that ‘Colombo was a better city than Singapore’ [2, pg.14/22], and he was ‘impressed by the public buildings’ in the city [1, p 460].

His View of Sri Lankan Leaders

LKY gave his opinion on six Premiers of Sri Lanka namely S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, Dudley Senanayake, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, J.R Jayewardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa and on Mahinda Rajapaksa just a. few years before his death

His first visit to Sri Lanka coincided with the victory of Bandaranaike’s newly created Sri Lanka Freedom Party, he calls him a dapper little man, well dressed, articulate and a ‘Pukka Sahib’ [1, p 460] a term invented by the British to call the inhabitants of their colonies who followed their ways.

LKY says that Bandaranaike was elated to have won the election mandate from a Sinhala majority and he had promised to make Sinhalese the official language and Buddhism the state religion and did not seem troubled by the disadvantage caused by the minorities as a result of it [1, p 460], during his conversations with him he felt that Bandaranaike spoke to him as if he had still been a member of the Oxford Union debating society [1, p461], despite all his effort to be a champion of the Sinhalese Language, he states that three years later he was not surprised to hear about his assassination by a Buddhist monk [ibid].

LKY’s second visit to Sri Lanka was in 1966, when Dudley Senanayake was the prime minister of the Country, who he refers as a gentle, resigned and a fatalistic elderly man [1, p 462], while playing golf together in Colombo he describes an incident where Dudley Senanayake apologised to him about the huts, goats and cows encroached by squatters at the fairway, as he was unable to justify people for keeping open spaces in the city, unlike our present leaders Senanayake quite casually sent LKY by train from Colombo to Nuwara Eliya, where he played a game of golf and witnessed the same problem with the squatters as in Colombo [ibid]. He felt that Senanayake was a weak leader and did not have control over the citizens of the country.

When he visited Sri Lanka for the third time in 1970, the prime minister of Sri Lanka was Sirimavo Bandaranaike, whom he believed had won due to a sympathy vote [1, p 461] but he describes her as a tougher, determined and less voluble leader than her husband S.W.R.D Bandaranaike [ibid]. He praises her policy on the non-aligned ideology, but he is not in favour of her policy-based decision on supporting the removal of US troops from several South East Asian Countries as he felt that Singapore could be at a disadvantage if they were removed as there was a possibility of communism taking over those countries which could have a negative impact on Singapore [ibid].

It was through one of her Cabinet Ministers Felix Dias Bandaranaike that he learnt Sri Lanka spent only 2.5% of its budget on defence [1, p 461], and the reason he gives is that Sri Lanka is “blessed” with peace and security as a result of its good fortune in geography and history. LKY calls him a bright but an ‘unprofound’ person, but despite its ‘blessings’ he ironically mentions that 10 years later Sri Lanka spends more than half of its budget on defence and arms to crush a rebellion that took place inside the Country [ibid], he is the only Sri Lankan minister ever mentioned by him.

LKY further states the futility of Mrs Bandaranaike’s decision to change the name of the country from ‘Ceylon’ to ‘Sri Lanka’ and making the country a republic as it did not improve the fortunes of the country, the best example he takes here is that Sri Lankan Tea was still been sold as Ceylon Tea [1, pg.463] as a matter of fact even to this day Sri Lankan Tea is known as Ceylon Tea. He further states that by changing names sometimes you could deceive gods, but you can’t deceive the people who live in it [2, pg.15/22]

His meeting with President J R Jayewardene took place outside Sri Lanka, which was at the CHOGRM Conference held in Sydney. He says that during this meeting Jayewardene wanted Sri Lanka to move away from socialist policies which had bankrupted the country and wanted Singapore to get involved in the development of Sri Lanka; he says that he was impressed by his practical approach which made him visit Sri Lanka for the fourth time in 1978 [1, pp 463,464].

Despite the positive outlook LKY had on President Jayewardene, as time went by he started seeing his drawbacks, the former thought that the latter’s decision to start a national airline as a symbol of progress and employ a pilot as a chairman of the newly built airline as a weakness [1, p 464]. He finally states Jayewardene retired as a tired man who had run out of solutions [1, p 465], which indicates that his opinion of Jayewardene had changed.

He calls Ranasingha Premadasa, who succeeded him a ‘Sinhala Chauvinist’ [1, p 465] and considers the latter’s decision to remove Indian Soldiers brought down during the Jayawardena government to fight the civil war as insensible [ibid]. He did not have a positive attitude towards Ranasinghe Premadasa.

A few years before his death in an interview he had given to the American journalist Tom Plate he gives his views on the former President and the incumbent Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa as follows: “He thinks he has finished the war, I have read his speeches, I knew he was a Sinhalese extremist and I cannot change his mind” [3], he felt that Rajapaksa was an obstinate leader and extremist.

His View on Sri Lanka’s Economy and Management

LKY was aware that Sri Lanka was a country with wealth. ‘Sri Lanka had large Sterling Reserves’ [2, p 14/22], yet he knew that the country lacked management principles and sound policies that could one day challenge the ability to retain that wealth.

One of his first experiences was when the Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake sent LKY from Colombo to Nuwara Elya by train in a special carriage, the food given on that train was ‘poisonous’, and the crab meal that was served to him was stinking and badly contaminated [1, pg.462], which showed carelessness and irresponsible management by the railway department. He went into the toilet and spewed it all [ibid].

LKY realised that Sri Lankan leaders were not intelligent in identifying priorities. When Jayewardene wanted to start an airline as he thought that it was a symbol of progress, LKY advised him that it should not be his priority because to start an airline one needed many talented and good administrators, in addition to that an airline is a glamour project and is not of great value for developing Sri Lanka [1, p 464] instead he advised the Sri Lankan President that priority should be given to other projects in the country such as irrigation, agriculture, industrial development and housing [ibid].

LKY observed the lack of meritocracy in Sri Lankan administration when Jayewardene decided to employ a pilot as a Chairman of the newly formed Airline, his simple question to him was this: ‘How can an airline pilot run an airline?’ [1, pg.464], he firmly believed that it should be done by a capable administrator. However Jayewardene insisted on it so LKY helped him to launch it in six months with the help of the staff of Singapore Airlines. This was the beginning of Air Lanka (now Sri Lankan Airlines), but it lacked a proper top management and when the newly elected chairman decided to buy certain aircraft against their advice, the Singaporean government decided to withdraw its support.

LKY foresaw that Air Lanka was doomed to fail, and he gave five reasons for it, and they were excessive capacity expansion, negative cash flow, lack of trained staff, unreliable services and insufficient passengers. [1, p 464].

LKY noticed the absence of meritocracy when he saw the condition of the tea estates here; he was very disappointed of the way tea estates were managed and criticised the locals who managed it when he states that ‘the locals who had been promoted were not good supervisors as their British predecessors’ [1, p 463], and as a result there was no strict discipline, plucking was not done appropriately and the tea plantations were in a deplorable condition’[ibid]; if responsibilities are not given based on meritocracy the industries wouldcollapse and as a result the economy of the country is doomed to fail.

LKY’s on the Education System of Sri Lanka and his visit to the Peradeniya University

LKY had a very positive view of the education system introduced by the British in Sri Lanka. He says, ‘It (Sri Lanka) had a relatively good standard of education’ [1, p 462]. He says Sri Lanka had some universities of high quality in Colombo and Kandy (Peradeniya) that was teaching in English [ibid] and before the war they had thick layer of educated talent [2, pg. 14/22], but he was disappointed at its change of medium to local languages and the standards of the education after his visit to the Peradeniya University.

LKY mentions his visit to the Peradeniya University, which he calls the University of Kandy, when he learnt from the Vice Chancellor that the medium of instruction in the university Sinhala for Sinhalese students, Tamil for students from Jaffna and English for Burgher students. [1, pg.463]

LKY asks the Vice Chancellor, ‘How can three engineers educated in three different languages build one bridge?’ And the VC replied: ‘That, Sir is a political question for the ministers to answer’ [1, p 463]. This statement showed how qualified educationists in Sri Lanka became helpless because of the decisions made by politicians.

The Vice Chancellor further mentions that all the basic textbooks which were printed in English had to be translated to Sinhala and Tamil and by the time they were translated and printed, they were three to four editions old; LKY calls this translation a slow and unwieldy process [1, p 463].

Although LKY does not mention the name of the Vice Chancellor, he describes him as a Burgher gentleman who wore a Cambridge University tie, and this description matches Professor E. O. E Periera, who held the position of the Vice Chancellor of Peradeniya University from 1969 to 1971.

Even though LKY was full of praise of the Sri Lankan education system, which was initially conducted in English, after his visit to the Peradeniya University his views changed as he witnessed the switch over from English to local languages and the helplessness of the academics.

What Sri Lanka did was the opposite of what LKY did to Universities in Singapore; he changed the medium of instruction at the Nanyang University in Singapore from Chinese to English, when he realised that it could not be done as the lecturers lacked the proper skills he merged it with the University of Singapore and thus was the beginning of the National University of Singapore [2, p 3/4], several years later reflecting about his decision he says Nanyang University no longer taught in Chinese and its graduates could easily find employment. [1, pg702].

LKY’s view on ethnic problem of Sri Lanka

LKY was very sympathetic towards the Tamils of Sri Lanka. He states that ‘they were active and intelligent fellows who worked hard and got themselves penalised as a result of the domination of the Sinhala majority’ [2, p 14/22]: ‘Sinhalese who are less capable are putting down Tamils who are more capable [3].

He was critical of Sri Lanka’s election. He mentions that ‘one-man-one-vote system did not solve a basic problem’ [1, p 462]. He believed that that the voting system did not give a fair representation. He states, ‘The majority Sinhalese could outvote the Tamils’ [Ibid] and ‘Sri Lanka is a democracy based on one citizen one vote’ [3] and he is not against democracies when they work, but he was against defending countries because of democracy [ibid].

J R Jayewardene told LKY that he was willing to give autonomy control to the Tamil people in Jaffna but later realised that he could not giveaway to the supremacy of Sinhalese to the Tamil, which led to the civil war [1, pg.464].

LKY firmly believed that a political solution was the only way to sort out the ethnic problem of Sri Lanka. During his meetings with President Premadasa he tried to convince him that the conflict could not be solved by force of arms and the political solution was the only way [1, p 465].

LKY believed that the civil war that took place in Sri Lanka destroyed the hope of a prosperous Sri Lanka for many years if not many generations [1, p 464], which is true as every successive government in Sri Lanka from the 1980s had to deal with it and despite ending the war, we are yet overcome the scars and horrors of it.

His view on reasons for Sri Lanka’s failure

LKY thought that S.W.R. D Bandaranaike’s decision to make Sinhala the national language and Buddhism the national religion as the start of the ‘unravelling’ of Ceylon [1, p 460]; he further states that the minority Tamils felt disadvantaged and disposed as a result of it [1, p 462].

He wanted English to be made the primary language of use in Singapore. ‘We inherited the English Language from the British and adopted it as our common working language’ [1, p 78] and when Singapore got independence from the British, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce wanted him to make Chinese the official language of Singapore. Although the Chinese were the majority community in Singapore and LKY was himself a Chinese, his answer to them was ‘You must be mad’. [2, pg.2/4].

LKY was against the concept of welfare. ‘Welfare undermines Self Reliance’ [1, p 126] as he believed everyone had to work. ‘The world does not owe us a living; we cannot live by the begging bowl’ [1, p 70] but successive Sri Lankan governments depended on loans and aid while the people of Sri Lanka depended on welfare and concessions.

In 1994, during a debate in the Singapore Parliament LKY asked, ‘Can you have a good government without having good men in charge?’ [2, pg13/22], his simple view was that you can’t have a good Country without good administrators and referring to Sri Lanka he states, ‘During my visits over the years I watched the promising country go to waste [1, pg.462] and it failed because they had wrong or weak leaders like the Philippines [2, p 15/22].

Conclusion

Was LKY aware that Sri Lanka was looking at Singapore as a model? He did, and what was his opinion about it? He says, ‘It was ‘flattering’ for Sri Lanka to model its Country from Singapore’ [1, pg464]. He knew that Sri Lanka can never be a Singapore.

LKY never wanted any prestige and honour. ‘I had no desire to rewrite the past and perpetuate ourselves by renaming streets or buildings or putting our faces on postage stamps or currency notes’. However, in Sri Lanka majority of the road names in Colombo were changed and many Prime Ministers and Presidents had their faces in postage stamps, coins and banks notes.

LKY ends the chapter on Sri Lanka in his memoir thus: “It’s sad that the country whose ancient name Serendip [sic] has given the English Language the word ‘serendipity’ is now the epitome of conflict, pain, sorrow and hopelessness’ [1, pg.466]. According to the Oxford Dictionary the word serendipity means ‘Something interesting or pleasant happening by chance’.

In another speech, LKY states that Sri Lanka can never be put together again and somebody should have told Sri Lankans to change the system, loosen up or break off [2, pg.14/22]. Today, Sri Lankans have come on to the streets protesting the rulers to leave and change the system, something LKY expected Sri Lanka to do, or the Country would break.

A few years before his death, LKY mentioned that despite the end of the civil war ‘It (Sri Lanka) is not a happy, united country’ [3], so will Sri Lanka groom itself to be a united and a happy Country, this will be possible only if its citizens are confident in achieving it, as Lee Kwan states ‘If I have to choose one word to explain why Singapore succeeded, it is CONFIDENCE’ [1, p 87]. Hopefully, if Sri Lankans move forward with confidence, the country will be able to achieve its goal.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Maha Jana Handa at Nugegoda, cyclone destruction, and contenders positioning for power in post-NPP Sri Lanka – I

Published

1 hour ago

2025/12/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

Maha Jana Handa rally at Nugegoda

The Joint Opposition rally dubbed the ‘Maha Jana Handa’ (Vox Populi/ Voice of the People) held at the Ananda Samarakoon Open Air Theatre, Nugegoda on 21 November, 2025 has suddenly acquired a growing potential to be remembered as a significant turning point in post-civil conflict Sri Lankan politics, in the wake of the meteorological catastrophe caused by the calamitous Ditwah cyclonic storm that devastated the whole country from north to south and east to west on an unprecedented scale. But the strength of this prospect depends on the collective coordinated success of the future public awareness raising rallies, promised by the participating opposition parties, against the incumbent JVP-led NPP government. They are set to expose what they perceive as the government’s utterly inexperienced and unexpectedly authoritarian stand on certain vitally important issues including the country’s national security and independence, political and economic stability, and the Lankan state’s unitary status. The government is also alleged to be moving towards establishing a form of old-fashioned single party Marxist dictatorship in place of the firmly established system of governance based on parliamentary democracy, which was almost toppled by the adventitious Aragalaya protest of 2022 but saved by the timely intervention of some patriotic elements.

The minefield of policy making that the government must negotiate is strewn with issues including, among others: the seven or so recent agreements or MOUs (?) secretly signed with India; the unresolved controversy over the allegedly illegal clearance of some 323 containers (with unknown goods) without mandatory Customs inspection, from the Colombo Port; the Prime Minister’s arbitrary, apparently ill-considered and hasty education reforms without proper parliamentary discussion; the proposed culturally sensitive lgbtqia+ legislation non-issue (it is a non-issue for Sri Lanka, given its dominant culture); the so-called IMF debt trap; dealing with the unfair, virtually unilateral UNHRC resolutions against Sri Lanka; the inexplicably submissive surrender of the control of the profit-making Colombo Dockyard PLC to India; some government personal assets declarations that have raised many eyebrows, and the government’s handling of anti-narcotic and anti-corruption operations. The opposition politicians relentlessly criticise the ruling JVP/NPP’s failure to come out clean on these matters. But they themselves are not likely to be on an easy wicket if challenged to reveal their own positions regarding the above-mentioned issues.

In addition to those problems, the much more formidable challenge of unsolicited foreign-power interference in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs, in the guise of friendly intervention, remains an unavoidable circumstance that we are required to survive in the geostrategically sensitive region where Sri Lanka is located. Having been active right from the departure of the British colonialists in 1948, the foreign interference menace intensified after the successful ending of armed separatist terrorism in 2009. Such external interferences are locally assisted by latent domestic communal disharmony as well as real political factionalism, both of which are normal in any democratic country.

The war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the leader of the SLFP-led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA), was made to suffer a largely unexpected electoral defeat in 2015 through a foreign-engineered regime change operation that tacitly favoured his key rival, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. Mahinda was betrayed by his most trusted lieutenant Maithripala Sirisena.

The SLFP, a more middle of the way socialist-leaning rival political party, was formed in September 1951—five years after the birth of the UNP—and was elected to power in 1956, ending a near decade under the rather West-friendly latter party. It was deemed to be a ‘revolution’ that started an era of ‘transition’ (from elitist to common citizen rule). From nominal independence in 1948, governing power has to date alternated between these two parties or alliances led by them, except for the last electoral year, 2024. Though incumbent Executive President Anura Kumara Dissanayake may be said to have made history in this sense, the fact remains that he was barely able to scrape just 43% of the popular vote as the head of a newly formed, JVP-led NPP. Dissanayake was sworn in as President in September 2024. But his less than convincing electoral approval triggered a massive victory for the NPP at the parliamentary election that followed in November, giving him a parliament with 159 members, which is unprecedented in Sri Lanka’s electoral history.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons for this outcome. One is that the average Sri Lankan voters trust democracy. Since the president elect is accepted as having won the favour of the majority of the pan-Sri Lankan electorate, the general public choose to forget about their personal party affiliations and tend to vote for the parliamentary candidates from the party of the elected president. This is particularly true of the majority Sinhalese Buddhist community represented by the two mainstream, non-communal national parties, the UNP and the SLFP. The brittle foundation of that victory is not likely to sustain a strong enough administration that is capable of introducing the nebulous ‘system change’ that they have promised in their manifesto, while it is becoming clear that the general performance of the government seems to be falling far short of the real public expectations, which are not identical with the unconscionable demands made by the few separatist elements among the peaceful Tamil diaspora in the West, to whom the JVP/NPP alliance seems to owe its significantly qualified electoral success in 2024.

The Maha Jana Handa reminded me of the long Janabalaya Protest March from Kandy to Colombo where it ended in a mass rally on September 5, 2018. That hugely successful event was organised by the youth wing of the SLPP led by Namal Rajapaksa, who was an Opposition MP during the Yahapalanaya. He has played the same role just as efficiently on the most recent occasion, too. At the end of his address during the Maha Jana Handa, he declared his determination to bring down the malfunctioning JVP/NPP government at the earliest instance possible. Probably, he missed Ranil’s protege Harin Fernando’s speech that came earlier. This was because Namal Rajapaksa joined the rally midway. Harin had brought a message from his mentor Ranil to be read out to the rally audience. But he said he didn’t want to do so after all, saying that it was not suitable for that moment. Anyway, during his speech, Harin said emphatically that the era of heirs apparent or crown princes was gone for good. People knew that he was alluding to Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa (sons of former Presidents hopeful of succeeding Anura Kumara Dissanayake). Harin was seen biting his tongue or sticking it out a little as he was preparing to leave the stage at the end of his address. Was he regretting what he had just said or was he cocking a snook at what, he was sure, was Namal’s ambition that would be revealed in his speech, the rally having been organised by the Pohottuwa or the SLPP? (To be continued)

by Rohana R. Wasala

Opinion

Lessons that should be learnt from Ditwah

Published

2 hours ago

2025/12/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

Cyclonic storm Ditwah, named as such by Yemen referring to Detwah lagoon in one of its islands, caused severe devastation in Sri Lanka though it was categorised a weak tropical cyclone. When it hit on Thursday 27th November, the main problem was the unprecedented rain, some areas experiencing over 500 millimetres in 24 hours. Fortunately, wind speeds were not high reaching a maximum of only 45 mph, the sort of wind speed not infrequently encountered in the UK. In contrast, Hurricane Melissa, a category 5 storm which struck Jamaica, just a month ago, had winds reaching 185 mph! Though it was the most powerful storm to hit Jamaica ever, causing extensive damage across the island due to strong winds with added torrential rainfall causing landslides, the death toll was only 54 with further 15 people reported missing. It affected Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Haiti as well, with a further 48 deaths. Jamaicans were forewarned and were well prepared. It looks as if this did not happen in Sri Lanka. Though politicians are fighting over this aspect, despite it being not the priority, it is never too early to learn lessons. My comments that follow should not, in any way, detract from the very positive actions the government has taken and continues to do so, as well as the heroic efforts of volunteers putting their own lives at risk.

I did not realise the enormity till Friday (28) evening, when Ven. Teldeniyaye Amitha, who conducts a fortnightly Mindfulness meditation session over Zoom, told the participants that we should instead do Kindness meditation in view of the catastrophic situation in Sri Lanka. As soon as the session was over, I switched on to YouTube and was shocked by the images of destruction seen. When I contacted a good friend of mine in Kandy on Saturday 29th afternoon, what he told me made me realise that there were no warnings at all.

This lack of warning was not due to information being not available, I learned later. In fact, the DG of Meteorology has warned of an impending catastrophe when inclement weather was discussed on “Big Focus” programme broadcast over Derana TV on 12th November, in the presence of the DG of the Disaster Management Centre (DMC). It also further transpires that BBC World Service, the day before, accurately predicted that Cyclone Ditwah will cause heavy rainfall, up to 500mm, in Sri Lanka. Thus, there is no doubt that the government failed in its duty of adequate warning and taking action to minimise damage. Perhaps, it may have something to do with their labelling the DMC a ‘White Elephant’ in the past and threatening to dismantle it. Meteorological department’s lack of latest radar equipment is no excuse as information could be obtained from many sources. Some scientists whose sympathies are with the governing party seem to pronounce that weather predictions are unreliable. This may be so in the long term but, surely, BBC’s prediction the previous day, as well as the regular warnings sent by the Meteorological Service of India, should have been taken seriously. It is a great shame that the government does not seem prepared to admit that it made a mistake. Without that lessons cannot be learned!

It was disgusting to see a lady MP, who seems to be a loose cannon, having the audacity in parliament to blame Derana TV for broadcasting that programme! If true, it is more worrying that an opposition MP has stated in parliament that the Secretary of Defence has threatened the DG of Meteorology. In the latest turn of events, Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe has stated that the opposition should be sued for being silent on the weather warning! Does he not realise that by such loose talk he is helping the government to dig its own grave!

The other important question is whether the opening of sluice gates of reservoirs contributed to death and destruction. Some experts opine that had sluice gates been opened in advance to accommodate the expected torrential downpour, a significant amount of destruction and some deaths could have been avoided. This needs careful study, not to apportion blame, but to make sure that any future recurrences could be prevented. Considering the global changes in weather experienced, whatever the reason may be, we need to be prepared for this type of eventuality.

At a time of an unprecedented national emergency when cooperation of all was needed, the mudslinging on social media, both by supporters and opponents of the government, was despicable. There seems to be some truth to the accusations that the governing party goons hindered attempts by the opposition to help the affected, to claim credit for themselves! Do they think people in distress care whether ‘red stars’ are attached to aid packets?

The fact that the government seems incapable of taking criticism was made obvious by the actions of the Deputy Minister of Public Security. Though his Minister and the President subsequently denied that emergency powers would be used to suppress dissent,Watagala’s despicable behaviour, as well stated in the editorial “Emergency turns Jekyll into Hyde” (The Island, 5 December), deserves condemnation. There is a well justified suspicion that the Police are behaving as a paw of the ruling party, as two police officers with shadows over them were, plucked out of retirement, unashamedly appointed to two key positions as a reward for their political campaigning.

Perhaps, the comments made by Jaffna district MP, Dr Archchuna should make the government rethink, leave the past behind and act rationally. He told parliament that he had been rescued by Sinhala war heroes and sheltered in a Navy camp, criticising the government for insulting the armed forces. Considering the yeoman’s service rendered by the tri forces during this catastrophe, it is high time the governing party realised that service personnel are required at other times too, not only during war, and that they deserve the gratitude and the respect of the nation for saving us from terrorism too.

The best way to honour those who died during the recent disasters is by learning lessons from this tragedy so that we would be better equipped for any future emergencies. This could be done only if the government is prepared to eat humble pie and admit that mistakes were made. Do sincerely hope that they are big enough, and humble too, to do so!

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Opinion

A 6th Year Accolade: The eternal opulence of my fair lady

Published

1 day ago

2025/12/8

Thilina Walpola

The 6^th of December marked the sixth solar cycle since my adored life partner, Dr Malwattage Josephine Sarojini Perera (née Peeris), left this mortal world. Six years have elapsed; a period characterised by a searingly perpetual heartache. However, her inspiring influence is not diminished by the passage of time, and her memory has become more burnished and sublimely potent. It has transformed from a painful void into a sparkling, indestructible legacy that fortifies the hearts of all who were privileged to share her path.

The abyss left by her departure is multitudinous for all of us, including those who benefited from her professional dedication. Nevertheless, the consciousness of her magnificent journey, a spectacular 72 years, 2 months, and 11 days on this planet Earth, remains as a seamless record of a unique chronicle. It was the radiance of her inner spirit that rendered her truly peerless. She epitomised the beautiful words of one of my favourite Sri Lankan lady singers, “Beauty is how you feel inside; you glow from within.” Sarojini was a woman of monumental dignity and benevolence, whose serene, consistent luminosity brought a radiance into every room she entered. Her smile was a glorious spectacle of her lovely inner human nature; a pure expression of her soul’s integrity. That spectacularly radiant smile epitomised the immortal words of the beautiful song by Nat King Cole, “Smile though your heart is aching, smile even though it is breaking, when there are clouds in the sky, you will get by.“

Throughout her tenure on earth, she embodied the highest form of selfless service, dedicating her energies wholly to our family unit, her relatives, and all her acquaintances. She served her patients with an unreserved commitment, functioning as the very milieu of abiding reassurance for them. Her chosen field in medicine was one of profound challenges and pressing needs. She primarily worked ever so tirelessly with individuals afflicted and affected by Sexually transmitted Diseases, HIV and AIDS. They were a cohort frequently marginalised, ostracised, and terribly wounded by societal judgment. Yet, this extraordinary woman approached her work with limitless compassion and an intrinsic, deep-seated sense of humanitarian duty. She held an irrefutable conviction that beyond the stark finality of any medical diagnosis, there was a human being whose entitlement to honour, consideration, respect and warmth was absolute.

Sophocles wisely said: “One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life: That word is love.” Sarojini’s approach to life was built upon this very word ‘love’ as its foundation. She remained steadfastly true to her ethical moorings, never wavering in her commitment to assuage suffering and nurture genuine understanding. Her patients were not mere cases receiving clinical attention; they were embraced into a circle of care that extended beyond the confines of the clinic. Sarojini’s gentle disposition and empathetic spirit captivated all those who came seeking relief and comfort in her ministrations.

She extended not only medical expertise but also essential emotional ballast, serving as a critical beacon of optimism in times of the most profound darkness and utter despair. Her engagement was holistic; she saw the complete person, not just the disease. The philosopher Kahlil Gibran expressed a sentiment that describes the core values of her life: “You give but little when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.” Her affection emanated as a gentle, regenerative anodyne, calming the distressed spirits of those sighing in overwhelming heartache. Her bequest in this vital domain of medicine is not merely a record of treatments, but a register of hearts healed and spirits uplifted by unconditional acceptance and love.

Beyond her professional life, Sarojini was the gravitational centre of our existence; a loving spouse, an undaunted mother, and a precious confidante. The habitat and the canvas of love we built together were a haven of affection and composure, a place where joy thrived, and the air was often vibrant with shared merriment. She cultivated her family with boundless tenderness, sowing and nurturing the essential precepts of benevolence, rectitude, and resilience within us. In return, we never made her cry, but sometimes she cried for others, and some made her cry too.

Her capacity for quiet strength was remarkable; she could maintain perfect equilibrium even when confronted with severe setbacks, always taking deliberate, measured steps to restore serenity and balance. Her affection is a vibrant force that persists in the deepest recesses of our hearts, a covenant that triumphantly surpasses the limitations of physical existence and the transience of life. The deep impact of her role as a matriarch cannot be overstated; she was the silent architect of our moral framework and emotional stability, and the queen of our hearts.

As we reflect on her exceptional life and the vast bounty of goodness she left behind, our determination is not to be subdued by the grief of her physical absence, but rather, to eulogise the radiant splendour of her time amongst us. It is a legacy beyond epithets and the true portrayal of the lilting music of remembrance. We feel the unremitting pain of missing her absolutely and profoundly. She may have transitioned from this worldly realm, but her vital essence remains inextricably bound to ours, steering us with her quiet wisdom and inspiring us with her incomparable dignity. Sarojini’s life stands as an eternal affidavit to the transformative power of enduring love, deep empathy, and sacrificial duty. It remains a boon that richly augments our present and illuminates our future. True beauty, as she demonstrated, is not simply what the eyes can witness, but, more crucially, what the soul can permanently safeguard. What we perceive visually is destined to fade, but the treasures we store within our hearts will remain eternally.

Many, including myself, our daughter Maneesha and our grandchildren, Joshua, Malaika and Jaydon, have endeavoured with every available adjective and hyperbolic utterance to paint a faithful portrait of the superlative person that was Sarojini. Yet, even if we were to compile tomes detailing her excellence, the effort would still fall short of creating a realistic depiction that truly captures her profile. It is simply impossible to confine a description of her magnificence to even a substantial plethora of words.

For my part, I had the wonderful pleasure of the company of that stunning lady for all those blessed years, from the dawn of our courtship in 1973 until her fateful day of final rest. Despite the finality of that separation, memories remain the ultimate constant. I will forever recall her life as an exquisite and enduring strand, a beautiful composition, that will never diminish and will reverberate throughout the balance of my time on this planet Earth.

Sarojini, your loved ones strive daily to revere your memory by actively embodying the virtues you demonstrated so effortlessly: boundless compassion, humane benevolence, unbridled affection, and an unwavering commitment to the welfare of others. This is a matter of seminal importance to us, as it is a pledge towards the continuity of the very matrix of your tapestry of life on Mother Earth.

Darling Sara, I will end with a couple of lines from the 1996 Quadruple Chart Topper, “Because You Loved Me” by Celine Dion, which very concisely sums up what you were to me: –

“You’ve been my inspiration.

Through the lies, you were the truth.

My world is a better place because of you.”

by Dr B. J. C. Perera
(This appreciation appeared in The Island online edition on 06 Dec. 2025)