Features
The Petroleum Bill – its quiet passage and disquieting politics
by Rajan Philips
The Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Bill had a quiet passage in parliament with a majority of 60 votes, 77 for and 17 against. What is disquieting is that only 94 of the 224 MPs (excluding the Speaker) were in parliament for the vote on a Bill on petroleum products, the mismanagement of which turned the country upside down in a matter of months this year. The Bill itself is not some masterpiece of legislation to foster proper management of the petroleum sector, but a simple seeming amendment to the Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) Act No. 33 of 2002. It underscores the point that in the absence of real infrastructure and supporting policy regime, there is no legislative, regulatory or constitutional way out of the crisis in the petroleum sector or any other economic sector.
The legal purpose in both the principal enactment in 2002 and the new amendment is to enable the granting of licenses to entities outside the Petroleum Corporation “to import, export, sell, supply or distribute petroleum.” While the 2002 law vested the licensing power in the “Energy Supply Committee” established under the Energy Supplies Act (No. 2, 2002), the new Amendment transfers that responsibility to a (new) committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers. The Amendment also redefines the subject Minister by the words “the Minister” instead of “the Minister in charge of the subject of Power and Energy,” as it was in the original Act.
The Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of some of its provisions and the whole Bill itself. The Court held that the Bill itself in one respect and some of the provisions were indeed inconsistent with the constitution but suggested changes to the Bill to remove the inconsistency and the necessity for a two-thirds majority in parliament and even a referendum. Parliament has now passed the bill into law presumably including the changes suggested by the Supreme Court.
Media reports have been calling the amendment as a law to “liberalize the petroleum sector,” obviously taking the cue from the Minister of Power and Energy, Kanchana Wijesekera, who said in parliament that the new Amendment “will allow global suppliers to enter as retail operators, eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) on Jet Fuel and liberalize energy sector.” There is nothing in the eight clauses and four pages of the new Amendment that is not already in the main Act that is going to cause global suppliers to drop everything and rush with petroleum products to cashless Sri Lanka. If at all the new Amendment might be used to create the path of least obstacles to local petroleum wheeler dealers by replacing one obscure committee with another. This aspect of the Bill came up in the hearing before the Supreme Court.
Petroleum Saga
In an earlier article (July 24) I alluded to the saga of the petroleum industry – from pre-nationalization to nationalization in 1961, selective privatization thereafter, and the shift from CPC monopoly to CPC-LIOC duopoly – being a crucial case-study backdrop to the current fuel crisis. Any such case-study should be an exercise in political economy and not constitutional interpretations. Tragically, however, for all the political tumults about the supply and delivery crisis of petroleum products there has not been any corresponding ‘agitation’ in parliament either at the level of soliciting and securing up-to-date information on the supply and status of petroleum products, or at the level having some serious discussion about the petroleum crisis, its causes and potential solutions.
While no one in parliament is showing any serious interest in these matters, it is left to the Supreme Court to step in to fill the void. But filling the void is not solving the crisis and it is not in the business of the solve anything. Nonetheless, the Court’s ruling on the amending bill provides a good summary account of the “existing legal framework” for the regulation (I would add ‘and deregulation’) of the petroleum sector, beginning with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Act, No. 28 of 1961.
The current Minister who is now claiming that his new law will eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, should know from the Supreme Court ruling (if he is not directly familiar with the CPC Act) that the 1961 law that nationalized the petroleum industry has always included provisions permitting the supply or distribution of petrol, kerosene, diesel oil or furnace oil by non-CPC entities with the approval of the Minister or CPC Board of Directors.
These provisions were not utilized by governments not because, as was suggested during the Court hearing, the CPC Act did not ‘contemplate’ regulatory measures for their application but because no government until after 1977 contemplated using them for the import, supply or distribution by non-CPC entities. This included both the governments of the Left and the Right. In fact, it was the UNP government of Dudley Senanayake that entrenched the monopoly of the CPC by building a new refinery in Sapugaskanda with the capacity to meet virtually the entire domestic demand for petroleum products by importing and refining crude oil from Iran.
Legal Labyrinth
Contemplation, if any, to use non-CPC sources for the supply and distribution of petroleum products began after 1977 with the changes in economic direction and philosophy, under a different UNP government led by PM turned President, JR Jayewardene. His government enacted the Petroleum Products (Regulation and Control of Supplies) Act No. 34 of 1979 to provide for the regulation and control of the distribution and use of petroleum products. Nothing much came out of it, and the JRJ government, as I wrote earlier, baulked from making a serious and considered decision about the petroleum sector (or the electricity sector) – whether to continue the CPC monopoly, ‘liberalize’ the whole sector, or selectively ‘unbundle’ it to create a healthy blend of both public and private sector involvement.
The next set of laws came after more than 20 years, in 2002, when Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister, co-habiting with President Chandrika Kumaratunga. There were three pieces of Legislation – the Energy Supply Act, the Petroleum Products Act and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka Act, all enacted in 2002. The Energy Supply Act was enacted to purportedly deal with the emerging energy crisis in the country, and the Act enabled the creation of a new Committee, the Energy Supply Committee, but it also provided for the of regulation of “activities of persons engaged in the importation, exportation, storage, distribution and supply of petroleum and petroleum products.”
However, the Energy Supply Act was in operation only for a period of two years from March 2002 to March 2004, and would seem to have died with the sacking (through dissolution of parliament) of the peace-process government of Ranil Wickremesinghe by President Kumaratunga. At the same time, the Petroleum Products Act that was also enacted in 2002 by the Wickremesinghe government has survived his alternations in and out of power and, according to the Supreme Court, has provided “a more empowered regulatory regime over the petroleum industry.”
The Court ruling suggests that the Petroleum Products Act (PPA) “sought to regulate the downstream petroleum sector by removing the monopoly of the CPC and providing for the issue of licences subject to prescribed conditions.” With respect and in policy parlance, the PPA legislation actually sought to achieve the opposite: to deregulate the petroleum sector! Pertinent to the new amendment to the PPA legislation, the latter provided for the licences for the import, export, sale, supply or distribution of petroleum products to be issued by the Minister on the recommendations of the Energy Supply Committee. The latter committee would somehow seem to have survived the demise of its enabling legislation. As I have indicated at the outset, the new Amendment is replacing the Energy Supply Committee by a new Committee.
A word on the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) Act to round off this legal labyrinth, and the underlying overlapping of vested interests. The intended purpose of the Commission (and the Act) is to provide “a framework for the regulation of public utilities industries, which originally included (in the Act’s schedules) only the Electricity Industry and the Water Service industry. The Petroleum Industry was added to the PUCSL list four years later, in 2006, just after Mahinda Rajapaksa became the new President.
As the Court duly noted in its ruling, it was unclear “during the hearing whether there was agreement amongst parties on whether the PUCSL did exercise any regulatory power in terms of the PUCSL Act over the petroleum industry.” And the Court concluded that “the PUCSL does not have any power of regulation over the petroleum industry merely upon it being included in the Schedule to the PUCSL Act.”
What next?
The question now is what difference is the new amendment going to make to the operation of the petroleum sector? The Minister might think that he now has a freer hand to break the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and get non-CPC entities to import and supply petroleum products for local distribution. If the Minister, or the government, wants to really end the monopoly of the CPC, even though there is no monopoly now anyway, it must bite the bullet and privatize the CPC. That way whoever is willing to take over the CPC can use its infrastructure the same way the CPC used the infrastructure of the multinational oil companies after nationalization. In trying to create a parallel system besides the CPC, the government is only leading the country into the worst of both (public and private) worlds. The same way the JRJ government destroyed the bus industry and the school system. Very soon there might be an international university on climate change headed by a new Jennings from Norway!
As for falling into the worst of both worlds, the Supreme Court ruling has laid down the markers to indicate where things easily go wrong. The Court held that in three areas the new Bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and suggested changes. First, the Court directed the new Committee to be restructured to include two additional Ministry Secretaries similar to the Energy Supply Committee. Second, it struck Clause 7, a deeming provision that made any previous act by the Energy Supply Committee legal and unchallengeable in courts. Third, the Court held the whole Bill inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as new Committee was kept outside the purview of Bribery Act. The Court directed the Bill to be changed to include the Committee as a Scheduled Institution under the meaning of the Bribery Act.
Why was it excluded from the purview of the Bribery Act in the first place? The answer is because the real intent behind half-baked attempts at licensing is to create the path of least obstacles to local importers and their foreign suppliers. Even with privatization, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that proper processes are in place for setting criteria and standards, for competitive bidding, and for the granting of licenses and contracts. That has not been the case at all in Sri Lanka, starting from 1977 and made worse after 2010.
Specific to the petroleum sector, the legislative changes in 2002 under Ranil Wickremesinghe and in 2006 under Mahinda Rajapaksa leaves one to opine if, after all, Mahinda Rajapaksa was continuing from where Ranil Wickremesinghe left. Is it now the other way around? And is national politics now reduced to the two trying to rise together via Ekwa Negitimu? Not to mention, as has been reported, the long distance conversations between Ranil Wickremesinghe and Basil Rajapaksa to consummate a no-contest electoral marriage between the UNP and the SLPP.
Features
Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition
Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.
Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.
Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.
However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.
For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.
Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.
Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.
Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.
In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.
For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.
Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.
It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.
It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.
From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.
Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.
Features
Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA
Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.
Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.
“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.
Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.
He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.
“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.
The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.
He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.
Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.
In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.
“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.
He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.
The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.
Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.
In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.
However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.
“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.
He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.
“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.
Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.
“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’
Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.
He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.
I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.
However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.
They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.’
Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.
Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band
This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.
According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.
Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.
Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.
He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.
The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.
Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.
Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.
-
Features5 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News5 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News3 days agoLankan-origin actress Subashini found dead in India
-
Features5 days agoBeyond the Blue Skies: A Tribute to Captain Elmo Jayawardena
-
Opinion7 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Features5 days agoAspects of Ceylon/Sri Lanka Foreign Relations – 1948 to 1976
-
Features7 days agoThe Ramadan War
-
Editorial6 days agoBrouhaha over a book
