Features
All Party Conference: Accelerated Reconciliation Program
by Rajan Philips
It is not my general purpose to coin new monikers for the President, but it seems appropriate to call President Wickremesinghe’s new All-Party-Conference initiative as Accelerated Reconciliation Program, inasmuch as it brings to mind President Jayewardene’s Accelerated Mahaweli Development Program that was launched 45 years ago. There are obviously more differences than any similarity between the two, but the premise for and the purpose of acceleration are about the same.
The Mahaweli Program was the centre piece of JRJ’s economic liberalization, although, and quite needlessly, the Mahaweli Program involved much over-liberalization involving the wholesale upending of competitive tender and technical supervisory procedures to build dams and power plants under the guise of bilateral grant agreements with several countries. The Rajapaksas later drove truck after truck through the procedural hole created by the Mahaweli Program and President Premadasa’s housing projects, as they set about building ports and roads through bilateral loan agreements with one country.
There is no direct economic dimension to the Accelerated Reconciliation Program of President Wickremesinghe and, hopefully, there will be no occasion for something like confusing FINCO with Trinco. The President is of course is carrying a whole different economic burden, which is not at all to open up the economy as JRJ did, but to lift the already open economy from the debt hole into which it has fallen. Rescuing the economy is a parallel and separate task, one which many would consider to be more ‘urgent’ than ‘reconciliation,’ and one that cannot be unilaterally accelerated, let alone be completed before February 4, 2023, which is the President’s target date for reconciliation.
In fact, there is no acceleration on the economic track, only falling and stalling. The third quarter (July-Sept) numbers show that the GDP grew negative by 11.8%, with Agriculture, Industry and Services declining by 8.7%, 21.2%, and 2.6%, respectively. At the same time, there is stalling in the IMF talks and on debt restructuring with China. The IMF delay is attributed to lack of consensus over restructuring among creditors, and the apparent lack of initiatives to reform money losing state owned enterprises (SOEs). If anyone thought reforming SOEs would be politically simple, they should think again as public opinion seems to be weighed against the selling of “national assets”, according to a recently reported survey by the Social Scientists’ Association.
Reforming SOEs should not be the same as selling out assets, like “selling family silver,” as the aristocratic Harold MacMillan told the grocer’s daughter, Margaret Thatcher. At the same time, opinion surveys could be better designed to probe a little more into people’s thinking rather than capturing what is out there in the public domain as fossilized notions. For example, should the CEB or the CPC be considered an asset or liability, based on their finances, debt burden, employment warehousing, and exorbitant pricing? If the national airline could be handed over to foreign airlines for proper and profitable management, why not the more land based liabilities? Specific to the electricity sector, as well as others, reform measures need not be either/or, but different components could be ‘unbundled’ and ‘reformed’ differently.
For economic reform measures to be successful, the public will have to be properly informed and persuaded. Otherwise, no reform will succeed. The onus is on the President even if he keeps insisting that he cannot be having any reform plan when there is no economy to speak of. With his hands full on the economy, how can the President take on reconciliation and accelerate it for accomplishment by February 4, 2023? That is a reasonable question, rational people can ask. The President will of course respond with his cynical wit that as the economy is going to take 25 years to turnaround, he can do other things like reconciliation during the long interval. Still there is the risk that reconciliation can go south (i.e., down) quickly, if people do not see any lessening of their heavy economic burdens.
All Party Dynamic
All that said, the parliamentary President would seem to have been in his elements at the All Party Conference last Tuesday, going by photographs doing the rounds after the conference. Sharing the podium were the President, flanked by Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena and Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena on his left, and on his right by former President/PM Mahinda Rajapaksa and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa. The symbolism of consensus making at the outset, howsoever it might turn out to be in the end, is remarkably better than anything one can remember from previous conferences. Restricting the conference to parliamentary representatives is also a positively smart move, going by the way JRJ set up the January 1984 APC, which was convened at India’s nudging, to fail disastrously by inviting all and sundry from outside parliament.
Apart from the podium-seated leaders, the Conference would seem to have been attended by almost all party leaders and many MPs, save for the conspicuous no show by the JVP and its quondam comrades – Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila. JVP’s absence is both inexplicable and inexcusable. It could and should have attended the conference, even if to make a statement outlining its objections to the exercise and indicating what alternative mechanism it will provide. To be sure, it is now a question of finding mechanisms and measures to implement something, instead of endlessly trying to produce the perfect devolution package with or without translation gimmicks.
We will get to this later on, but let me here reiterate the point that the JVP shot itself in the foot by not attending the conference. It still has plenty of time to rethink its position and attend future sessions, because for the JVP to be seen as a viable national political force it must be seen where relatively positive political action is going on. By staying away the JVP is losing the opportunity to a create positive impact of its own.
The JVP aside, there are three palpable sources of influence and implication that are shaping and driving the reconciliation initiative. First, there is the President as the prime mover who is taking, I dare say, positive advantage of his current circumstances to find maximum common ground among the Sinhalese MPs in parliament, involving both the government (SLPP) and opposition MPs. There are many irreconcilable differences between them, but they seem to have stumbled on a minimum common ground to lend initial support to the President’s reconciliation initiative.
Second, are the Tamil and Muslim MPs in parliament, who have their own differences and priorities, and their own experiential misgivings with President Wickremesinghe. The minority side of the Sri Lankan national question is no longer the monopoly of any single minority group. The Sri Lankan Tamils are not the principal or dominant minority group anymore. The hitherto ‘silent minorities,’ the Muslims and the upcountry Tamils, have now become forces in their own right to reckon with.
The three groups have their internal differences, and they have not been co-operative in the past and have often worked at cross purposes. However, MPs belonging to different entities within each group would also seem to have found common ground and overlapping interests in working with the President in his current reconciliation initiative. The multi-polarity of the minority side could also play a positive role in dealing with contentious issues by facilitating otherwise unreachable compromises. Examples would be not to insist on a north-east re-merger, and concede to the upcountry Tamils a ‘condominium’ unit of their own in the Central Province.
The third source of influence is the broader Sinhalese political community, which in the past have been manipulated by political leaders in parliament. Although it has often been suggested that Sinhalese political leaders have been forced by the Sinhalese people to act against the Tamils, there is sufficient empirical and electoral evidence to suggest the opposite. The question now is how the new consensus or ‘political contract’ that President Wickremesinghe is trying to forge in parliament will resonate in the broader Sinhalese political community.
The Times of India news story (December 14, sourcing the Press Trust of India) has noted that “there were no immediate comments from pro-Sinhala majority nationalist parties on Tuesday’s talks.” Indeed, the Sri Lankan media has shown rather lukewarm interest in the APC and the President’s reconciliation. The few that have appeared still keep dredging up the old 50-50 (even though it was not totally wrong), the so called colonial legacy (which can be argued more the other way), and India’s alleged imposition of 13A (that is only one of many ways of looking at it). Even a bylined piece after the APC focused on the statements of a rather marginal attendee at the APC, and ignored the summary of speeches in the statement put out by the President’s Media Division (PMD) after the conference.
The PMD’s statement is a rather extensive and somewhat edited ‘minutes’ of the conference. What is striking about the proceedings is the apparent tone set by everyone who spoke at the conference. There was hardly anything by way intransigent rhetoric that has been a characteristic of past efforts. The intervenors sounded more practical than political and focused on what could and should be done in the immediate short term. The emphasis was on acting along parallel tracks and accomplishing what is possible before the President’s independence day deadline.
There was acknowledgement over issues where immediate action is possible, viz., land, release of prisoners and missing persons. The two government ministers (Ali Sabry and Wijayadasa Rajapakshe) who are handling these issues were at hand to speak to them. There was also the call to hold Provincial Council elections as soon as possible without having to wait for constitutional changes. While major constitutional changes are impossible before independence day, a general outline of them could be finalized by early next year.
In sum, the APC talks last week were more productive and practically focused than what transpired in times past. That does not mean that every track that has been opened is well laid to reach its destination. The whole thing can backfire without any warning; like any further economic shocks, forget the accelerated reconciliation program. That said the initiative taken by the President is commendable, and for all the disagreements some of us vigorously articulate, it is all in order to wish him success in this instance.
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
