Features

ABOLISH THE PRESIDENCY? THEN WHAT? A NEW CONSTITUTION?

Published

2 years ago

2024/08/18

by Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

There is near unanimity that the Presidential System has failed. Almost every candidate has before election, solemnly promised to abolish this position, but all, following election, have suffered from a “selective amnesia”, which has allowed this pernicious system to continue. In plain terms, they have lied to the entire voting public. One has even been called “a compulsive liar”. This is simply not acceptable from those who project themselves as the “leader” or “number one” of the country.

If the boss is untruthful as that, surely one cannot fault the subordinates for emulating him/her? Corruption is vicious, contagious and disgraceful. The delusion of being “above all” is clearly untenable.

The imposition of this deceitful system, is credited to the sagacity and foresight of the initiator JR. In my view, this is more like selfish egoism, than passionate fidelity or even political wisdom. He also developed “I disease” (Primus inter pares) – exemplified by the lavish use of “Mang koranawa” verbiage. The practice continues. It looks like a vain effort to confuse “the first person singular” with a “singular First Person.”

Like others who use “I” when they should more correctly use “We”. When we say that King Parakrama Bahu built the biggest tank in Polonnaruwa, it would not be right to picture His Majesty clad in an amude (loin cloth) wielding an udella (mammoty). This type of vanity, continues blatantly, even today. As a respected colleague once declared, a “good” planter, is one who does no work himself. Sharing credit with subordinates, without hogging it all, is the hallmark of a true leader. Such persons use “I” only to take responsibility for failure.

By this measure, none of the previous occupiers of the position of “Executive President” have served the nation properly, and has in truth, debased the position, big time. It takes three generations to breed a gentleman, and there are no shortcuts. Thus we will perhaps need lots of time, until a person of the required high caliber evolves. He/she should exhibit sufficient integrity and fidelity, and to behave in a manner to justify peoples’ faith, to properly discharge the enormous (many may consider “insufficient,” I don’t) power. The common view is that all of our Presidents have perverted the position and exceeded its authority.

A critical re-assessment of its suitability for us is needed. Suggestions for a return to the earlier position of a ceremonial president (or governor) have surfaced from time to time. Whether the idea of an “elected president” will serve, is moot.

The danger is that the extraordinary power of the position EP can lead to “delusions of grandeur”. More so, when the bluebottles around, even address him as “majesty/excellency” and songs are composed to glorify him. The silly bestowed title of “Maharajaneni,” led to claims of lineage to Dutugemunu or his Dasa Maha Yodayas. This is hilarious comedy. One even had the audacity to claim blood relationship to The Buddha. This is no longer merely funny. “In a democracy, your vote counts: in feudalism your count votes”.

All of the persons who have held the position of Executive President, have behaved like a Simian entrusted with a razor.

Much comment has been made of the academic insufficiency of a majority of present days Parliament. One doubts whether this is of much consequence, considering the ground reality.

The choice of candidates is with party seniors. Merit has low ranking in determining the choice. More depends, on caste, religion, gender, thuggery, financial capacity and potential to replenish party coffers. Consequently, the lawless, drug dealers, thieves, bootleggers, smugglers and other criminals are seen as the most useful to be used as ‘ground’ troops.

Thus, this first step in the electoral process is far less than democratic. Even the lowliest of professions outside call for minimum qualifications. Then an interview by persons of the required integrity and competence. Why cannot a suitable system, with the same objective be introduced? Surely, is it not an anomaly that even a conservancy laborer has to pass through a filtering process, while one with lesser qualifications can even be a minister or prime minister, or even The president. Some means should be sought to secure the best talent for the critical function of framing laws for the country.

Why do poor quality blokes and even criminals, get into an important body, like (Parliament) which supposedly determines laws to guide us? Why lament about absence of quality, when the process is so easily subverted at virtually every stage?

One obvious reason for crooks to crave for political position is because it protects (breach of privilege) any felon. The stark truth is that it positions them close to the nation’s “honey pot”, where the capacity to lap is all that matters. If one wants quality, then one must resolutely and fairly equate this with others truly toiling elsewhere. This is the only way of capturing quality. As it is, the dregs of society will continue to foul the atmosphere. Politics will continue to draw the worst, when the legitimate (and also criminal) rewards are so patently and obscenely high.

It cannot be denied that the present parliament, (and those before it), have been of a quality dismally below what the voters were promised, or led to expect. Performance, in fact has been low enough to justify a serious review of their salaries and benefits. There has to be better proportionality, in comparison with what prevails in the outside world.

Considering the real worth of parliamentarians, which is necessarily wide. I have suggested a possible way. The remuneration could be according to a multiplier. This could be one point five, two, five or even higher. This should be authenticated by their latest Income Tax Return. These should be submitted to The Speaker (or other authorized person). This is absolutely compulsory. Any in default, will not receive any payment or any privileges whatsoever, pending compliance.

While the requirement for a Declaration of Assets is already “on the books”, compliance is disgracefully low. It is useless if these declarations were to merely reside in somebody’s drawer, perhaps awaiting termites to get at them.

These declarations should be accessible for any legal or any other reasonable purpose. No such phenomena like the “ownerless Malwana mansion” should arise. Persons who provide information, leading to conviction for tax evasion, should be adequately rewarded. Any honest person purporting to be “serving the people,” should welcome such measures to rationalize state financial expenditure.

It is ironical that while the utmost secrecy is observed in the balloting process, parliament processes are not so. A party whip is a member with responsibility to enforce compliance with the decisions of the party hierarchy, on how all its member should vote.

This is a serious restriction of free choice (= conscience vote). The operation of the party whip, and the denial of a secret vote, surely makes a mockery of representative and transparent governance. This is not what democracy is expected to be.

This contradiction, also has other consequences. If all voting in parliament is subject to the operation of a party whip, and is thus pre-ordained, why debate? As Tarzie Vitachchi put it, “Communication without transformation, is merely gossip.” If so, of what use is the elaborate and costly pantomime called parliamentary debate? In fact, what use is there for a functioning parliament?

Why bother about educational qualifications and citizenship issues, when only double amputees, with no arm to raise, need to be disqualified? The electronic display, got no doubt at unconscionable cost, should cease to be of relevance. Except for exposing those cheats who took money for their vote but reneged.

Summary

Assuming that the call for abolishing the presidency and radical reform, as was the insistent and irrepressible cry of the aragalaya, which represented the nearest that had such massive support of the whole country, and thus demands to be heard, and cannot be ignored. This can only be achieved by a new constitution. It is in this context that the following changes are suggested :-

(i) The Presidency

Among the so-called “pillars of a democracy”, the President should belong to the “Legislative branch,” of which he may be the head. “The Executive” is what we now call “The Administration.” To “execute” is to do, perform, follow, achieve etc. This is precisely what government administration does. This branch also has the closest contact with the public, and thus most in need of reform. The judiciary may remain as it is. The legislature would continue with its duty to formulate laws, with the president as its head. This seems the most appropriate structure for effective governance. Recent events must show us that practices sanctified by long usage, can still be overlooked by an insensitive and deluded presidency.

Irrespective of whether he is nominated, elected or selected by parliament, The president should have no executive role, and be largely ceremonial. The use of the word “executive” in the title, has led to misinterpretation, and so should preferably be excluded from a new title. If so desired, he could be assigned to cover matters of a non- political nature. While positioned as the Head of the Legislature, he could for example, oversee such matters as climate change, renewable energy, recovery of damages arising from shipping disasters, seabed mineral resources, optimizing benefits from international interventions such as the carbon credits scheme, handling of radioactive waste, and others that may develop in the future. These are subjects beyond political diversity.

(II) The Cabinet

Kept to a minimum and strictly targeting operational efficiency, and not political expediency. There is need for review of state involvement, strictly in matters of personal choice. For example, religious affairs, sports and culture. Even the reformation of the medium of instruction in education by granting the choice to parents. The overwhelming cry would be for English.

(III) Nomination of candidates

The process of selecting candidates is by the hierarchy, as at present and where electors have no role. The present system has to change and conform to normal process. File application -> Curriculum Vitae -> Interview -> Selected Candidate. Meritocracy is of the essence.

(iv) The electoral process (polling)

The very large number of parties is confusing. This is aggravated by the need to pick three preferences. Further, the sequence of marking is new to voters. By the present rule of first marking the party favoured, (out of perhaps a few dozen on the list), and followed by the number of the preferred candidate, is open to significant error. The prescribed format of the ballot paper, is such that an error in step one distorts the preference seriously. The possibility of the preferred individual being not of the preferred party, presents a massive problem to the less sophisticated voter. The ballot paper, accommodating nearly a hundred parties, symbols and candidates’ names, (in three Languages) could result in a ballot paper the size of a bed sheet, and sufficient to baffle even the most sophisticated voter. With dozens of parties, and candidates (all in three languages), even the smartest of voters could be baffled.

The process of counting the ballots would be a nightmare. The presidential poll, may mercifully not be as difficult as the parliamentary.

(v) The product – the MP

The mere fact that a prisoner, convicted of murder, is brought from death row to be sworn in as an MP, is reason enough to discard the prevailing parliamentary culture. Further to this, how could a person who lost his own seat at an election, and sank his whole party into oblivion, enters as a nominated (?) MP, get selected as the PM and then becomes our President, is a laughable bit of nonsense. All this is supposed to be in accordance with the Constitution. Is there any need to such an aberration? One need say no more about such a silly document, which has also needed some 21 Amendments, and should be dumped in the nearest dustbin. We are also told to “honour” this rag of a constitution. What a load of BS!

An MP has alleged that more than half the cabinet are drug users. The alleged Number Two of the local drug Mafia is supposed to be a state minister! To what further depths can we descend?

There is hardly any indication that any (even of the few literates), read the reams of paper left on their tables, (all in all three languages). Can the cabinet, even it was of the highest stellar intellect, possibly take any thoughtful note of the hundreds of important issues referred to it?

A less than two- day week, a handy attendance fee, an absurdly subsidized Members’ restaurant, and near heavenly comforts, makes it utterly scandalous, that it still cannot draw sufficient for a miniscule quorum. At some time, even hell will become over-crowded.

As long as the party whip and open voting is compulsory, there is no purpose in elaborately symbolic discourse (all too often in filth, that is better restricted to a rowdy marketplace brawl). The National List is so abused beyond any vision or expectation. The current aberration of the RW case, makes further comment superfluous.

To what a state has our pathetic circus of a “Supreme Assembly,” debased and devalued itself.

I do not wish to proceed any further, about the evils and absurdity of our constitutional mess, not because I have not covered all of it comprehensively, but because of unwillingness to risk cardiac disorder, in dealing with such a pathetic reality.

One can only look forward to some relief, come 21 September 21 or will it be much of the same?

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

22 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

22 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

22 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.