Features

Amidst the Delta scare and Labour strife, will China become Sri Lanka’s new IMF?

Published

5 years ago

2021/08/8

by Rajan Philips

The government, rather the country, is in the grip of three mutually aggravating crises – involving public health, people’s lives and the economy. And every one of them has gotten critical. Covid-19 has morphed or mutated into a dreadful Delta scare. Even the suddenly impressive vaccine rollout is being outrun by surges in infections and deaths. If vaccination is picking up four paces, Delta is overtaking by eight paces and more. That is the reality.

Last Thursday, two major hospitals, the Ratnapura General Hospital and the Karapitiya Teaching Hospital, “declared emergency,” apparently a rare occurrence in Sri Lanka’s medical history. The emergency situation is due to increases in Covid-19 patients, technically bordering on “a situation of Mass Casualty Incidents” and warranting emergency responses, according to the Deputy Director-general of Health Services, Dr. Hemantha Herath. Hospitals in the Western Province are also getting filled up even as they are running short of oxygen supply. For some time now, the Lady Ridgeway Hospital in Colombo has been struggling to cope with the influx of children infected by Covid-19.

The second crisis is the unrest among working people. This is more than a labour or trade union problem. The widespread unrest and ubiquitous protests are not part of the usual political muscle flexing. They are desperate signs of vast sections of people finding it impossible to get on with life. No one is suggesting that the government should creatively find ways to immediately restore normal economic life in the country. But everyone, except those who are close to the perks and fringes of power, is aghast that government leaders are pretending that they are in control of everything and that normality is just round the corner. Nothing can be more distant from the truth. And the truth is about the third crisis, which is the economic crisis. What the people are helplessly experiencing is the symptom of an economy that is in severe crisis. There is no point trying to hide it or to pretend otherwise.

Just like the crises, the government’s responses to them are also mutually aggravating. On the pandemic front, the President and the government have so failed to put together a permanent team of experts who will publicly tell the government and the people the unvarnished truth about the Covid-19 situation in Sri Lanka, and offer their advice on what everyone should be doing to control and contain the Delta spread as much as possible.

Friday’s news reports announced that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa convened a special meeting to discuss the current COVID-19 situation. Head of the COVID-19 task force Army Commander General Shavendra Silva, minsters, Director General of Health Services and several other experts reportedly took part in the meeting. Nothing much came out of it. The point is this is more political ad-hocism, and not a substitute for putting in charge a permanent body of experts.

The government after initially downplaying the severity of the pandemic crisis and prematurely celebrating victory over the virus, is now trying to use Covid-19 as reason to stop public protesting. At the same time, the government is ignoring universal medical opinion that has been pleading for the continuation of Covid-19 restrictions. People can see through when the government uses medical opinion as grounds for arresting protesters, but will not listen to medical opinion that calls for generally restrictive measures to contain the spread of Covid-19. People can also see that protesters are not flouting Covid-19 precautions and they are not ignoring social distance requirements.

People know that they are experiencing the same helplessness and frustrations that are driving protesters to picket lines. They expect empathy from the government. And they want the government to honestly engage with the protesters and establish a consensual framework for work and welfare in the middle of an out-of-control pandemic with no quick ending in sight.

The government’s economic management and messaging have been as bad as, or even worse than, its responses to the pandemic and to the people’s plights. The country is facing its worst economic crisis since independence in terms of self-inflicted revenue losses and diminishing foreign reserves, a falling rupee and mounting debt (domestic and foreign), and onerous debt repayment obligations. The people are going through the worst spell of severe hardships in living memory. In the midst of them all the government is stubbornly talking about some alternative way of economic management. What is being touted as the alternative way is not the outcome of any collective thought process and any co-ordinated implementation plan. Instead, it is a catch-all phrase to give context to knee jerk and uncoordinated responses to different problems as and when they arise.

Chinese alternative to IMF?

The abrupt switch from chemical to organic fertilizers in agriculture by presidential fiat is by far the most glaring case in point. A second, politically less dramatic but economically more consequential instance is the government’s stubborn reluctance to seek IMF help to tide over the current balance of payment (BOP) crisis. In vaccine parlance, this reluctance is a severe form of IMF hesitancy. No one knows if this hesitancy is backed up by any hope of getting a full BOP bailout from Beijing. Even less is known if the government has approached Beijing for a fully-fledged BOP help beyond periodical swaps. Known lesser still is what would be China’s response.

It would be rationally worthwhile for the government to at least consider Chinese help as an alternative to seeking IMF help. Although rational, it is not necessarily a prudent choice. The gossipy question is if there is any thinking at all within the government along these lines, assuming of course that thinking is going on in government circles. Equally, there has been no serious speculation among government critics that the government might be looking to China as a potential alternative to the IMF.

Ever since China started providing development assistance to emerging economies and developing countries, global watchers have become interested in China’s role as a counter to western hegemony over development assistance through the agencies of the World Bank (providing development assistance) and the IMF (securing financial stability and lending to tide over balance of payment difficulties). Although China’s development assistance (through the China Development Bank and the China Export-Import Bank) is more comparable to the activities of the World Bank, in recent years there has been growing “journalistic interest” in viewing Beijing as an alternative source to the IMF for providing financial support to developing countries.

James Sundquist, a Yale University doctoral researcher, has summed up this interest in posing the question: “Does Chinese finance in the form of loans and currency swaps substitute for assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reducing that institution’s influence and opening more ‘policy space’ for developing countries?” His study based on data for 104 countries between 2001 and 2017 would seem to suggest that mostly countries that are “able to compensate China in means other than cash” are likely to consider turning to China to avoid the IMF. Non-cash compensation can be “repayment-in-kind with natural resource exports and geopolitical concessions.”

Sundquist selected four countries “for closer examination” to test his hypothesis. Sri Lanka is one of them. Angola, Zimbabwe and Mongolia are the other three. Angola is a resource rich country that received Chinese bailout and avoided the IMF. Zimbabwe, though nominally resource rich is practically resource poor because of its neglected and atrophied extraction infrastructure. China has not lent money to Zimbabwe because it is not credit worthy. Mongolia is resource-rich and China has been keen on offering assistance, but the Mongolian government opted to go along with IMF financial assistance and stabilization program. The apparent reason was to avoid too much bilateral reliance on China.

Sri Lanka is seen as a country that has received both development assistance and BOP assistance from China without possessing “resource guarantees,” because of its geopolitical assets. It would seem Sundquist’s research period preceded the Sri Lankan government’s current IMF hesitancy and did not quite assess the potential of Beijing becoming a total or the primary alternative to the IMF. But Sri Lanka’s current situation is more than a subject matter for research. It would be odd if looking to Beijing as an alternative to the IMF has not crossed the mind in the Rajapaksa government. The government speaks its mind on economic matters through half a dozen people. Everyone of them is dead set against the IMF. Six months ago, they were conventional IMF followers. But no one is mentioning Beijing as an alternative.

There are many factors at play. Until 20 years ago, there was no China and developing countries had only one place to go to, namely, the West and institutions dominated by the West. The entry of China has provided an alternative source and somewhat levelled the playing field. But only ‘somewhat.’ A part of that ‘levelling’ also includes the potential for ‘democratizing’ the operations of the World Bank and the IMF which are dominated by the US and its European allies. But China may not be all too keen about ‘democratizing’ anything anywhere. China’s development assistance and lending patterns are also totally driven by domestic reasons and for domestic purposes.

China’s external financial relations and operations are always “rooted in central government decisions” and are implemented only by “state-affiliated institutions.” China is not an incubator of private investors or a source of foreign direct investments. At the same time, China is not the inventor of financial diplomacy. The US and France, for example, have provided direct emergency financial assistance, bypassing the IMF, to countries in the Middle East and Africa, respectively.

Sundquist lists three key decisions taken at different times by the Chinese government, that apparently have influenced the ebb and flow of Chinese financial activities overseas. First, in 2006, came the decision to extend externally the hitherto domestic operations of the China Development Bank as a parallel to the World Bank. This decision was made “at a time of fractured political power in China,” according to Sundquist. The second was the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by President Xi Jinping even as he concentrated the powers of the state in the office of the President. The third key decision so far has been the roll back of the BRI initiative in 2018 to concentrate on the domestic economic situation in China.

Put another way, the rest of the world, especially countries that may want to look to China to avoid the west or the IMF, have no certainty whether or when China is going to keep its lending window open, and to what levels. There is also the concern over the lack transparency involving China’s assistance, that it ignores issues of domestic corruption and money laundering, and that it is more short-term oriented without long term sustainability.

Among Sundquist’s assertions based on his research are that “Chinese loans have indeed enabled some countries to avoid turning to the IMF and enabled others to negotiate deals with fewer attached conditions.” As his Zimbabwe case study has shown, “China has typically denied bailouts to countries without reliable sources of foreign exchange,” and has paid “attention to debt sustainability rather than trying to ensnare them in debt traps.” Overall, says Sundquist, “Borrowing governments will have to weigh the respective benefits of IMF and Chinese loans diligently. They will, however, be happy to have the choice.”

He further notes that “Since 2017, the pace of new loans has slowed, and China has begun to confront the problem of borrowers unable to meet their debt service obligations. It is entirely possible that as China’s position begins to resemble that of traditional Western creditors, it will begin to behave in a more similar manner to them and work more closely with the IMF.” Where does all this leave Sri Lanka? Is there a third way, that avoids both the IMF and China, to overcome the current balance of payment crisis? It is up to the government to clarify.

All News Advertisement

Features

New mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – I

Published

13 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill was passed by the Parliament on Thursday, June 11, 2026. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, introduced the Bill, and explained its provisions and value for Sri Lanka and global developments in the use of mediation. Encouragingly, it was passed unanimously.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to provide legislative support for the use of mediation is timely and most welcome. Given that the backlog of cases pending before courts is over a staggering 1.1 million, it is clear that Sri Lanka is yet another country that remains challenged to find responses to make dispute resolution more efficient. The impact of laws delays is serious and damaging not only to the disputants personally, but also for businesses and the economic development of the country. The delays in concluding cases impacts the economy adversely, both directly and indirectly, but are often seen only as an access to Justice concern. This is unfortunate. In many jurisdictions across the globe, alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), such as mediation, have been introduced to alleviate laws delays. While Sri Lanka enacted legislation (1988) to provide for mediation in respect of minor community disputes of a low monetary threshold, the enactment of the new law heralds a commitment to provide for the recognition of a disciplined regime for its use for higher value civil and commercial disputes.

The new law provides for the recognition of mediation as a dispute resolution option that can be voluntarily selected by parties, and for a governance regime to ensure that mediations are conducted in compliance with certain standards which are globally accepted. It provides statutory recognition to the principle that a mediated settlement agreement that has been signed by the disputants, is valid in law. It does not provide for any management control by government or establish entities. In addition to the voluntary reference by parties, a court can also refer a dispute in an action before it, to mediation, at its discretion, after considering all circumstances and if considered appropriate. The voluntary nature of the process is not affected because, while the court can refer the dispute to mediation and the parties must then engage in the mediation, there is no compulsion for the parties to settle against their will.

The law sets out the obligations of Mediators, disputants and the Service Provider. Certain categories of disputes cannot be referred to mediation. These are disputes the settlement of which requires the inclusion of terms that can be given effect to, only on a decree of court, such as the termination of a marriage or a declaration of nullity of marriage or the adoption of a child or the partition of land to obtain rights in rem. A schedule sets out eleven (11) categories of actions that cannot be settled by mediation. However, matters relevant to such disputes may be mediated for the purpose of submitting terms of settlement to court for consideration of incorporation in a judgement, decree or order in compliance with applicable law.

The new law also provides that in a mediation, certain key principles of the process must be complied with. These include the confidentiality and the without prejudice rule in respect of matters discussed at the mediation; the rule that Mediators must be neutral and impartial; the party centric nature of the process that provides primacy to the wishes of the disputants including that it is they that determine the outcome and that a settlement is reached only if all disputants agree to the terms; the noncoercive role of the mediator whose duty is to facilitate and manage the process using mediation specific skills and techniques, but is debarred from imposing a decision. Although a settlement agreement is valid in law, provision is included to obtain a decree of court, based on the terms of the settlement. A mediated settlement agreement can be set aside on an application made to court, on specific limited grounds which are provided for, including that it is offensive to the public policy of the country. If the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, a certificate of non-settlement is issued. The provisions of the law are based on international best practices and principles articulated in the 1988 UN Mediation Convention (the Singapore Convention) and the UNCITRAL model law.

The popularity of mediation has grown for its value in being time efficient, cost effective and party centric. Parties have control over the outcome and have the space to discuss their concerns, fears and interests and need never agree to settle unless fully satisfied that settlement terms address their interests. Disputants are free to walk out of a mediation process at any time, if dissatisfied with the progress. The discussions are confidential and a valuable feature is that the process offers an opportunity to reduce acrimony which is prevalent in most disputes, and to restore fractured relationships which is very important in family and business related disputes. This benefit and the prospects for governments to reduce the cost of the administration of justice, by using mediation, is articulated in the preamble to the 2018 UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (2018) which states that the use of mediation results in significant benefits.

Pursuant to the interest generated within the country regarding the value of using Mediation for commercial dispute resolution, and heralding what we like to see as the initial steps of a Mediation boom in the country, several positive advancements have taken place –

* Parties have opted to include mediation in the dispute resolution clause in contracts;

* Given that mediating disputes requires very specialised techniques and skills, many professionals, including predominantly Lawyers, have engaged in training programmes offered by international training bodies that offer accreditation;

* Trained Mediators are engaged in an effort to form themselves as a professional Organisation;

* Mediation Advocacy training programmes have been held to train Lawyers on their niche role in the mediation process. That role is distinctly different to that of a court Lawyer who’s obligations are centred on an adversarial approach where the dispute is adjudicated in terms of the law alone. Hence lawyers need training to be useful within a non-adversarial process which is party centric and has a focus on reaching a settlement, based on the interests of disputants.

* Sri Lanka enacted the Recognition and Enforcement of International Mediated Settlement Agreements Act No. 5 of 2024 (the UN Mediation Convention Act) and ratified the Convention becoming the 14th country to do so. Sri Lanka will be seen as an investor friendly country in respect of dispute resolution where mediation is used, since it offers an enforcement regime which is recognised universally.

* The landmark determination of the Supreme Court (SC SD 22 of 2025) in the challenge by the Bar Association to the constitutionality of the Mediation (Civil and Commercial Disputes) Bill, found that none of the provisions of the Bill were unconstitutional and gave a judicial sign off to statutory provisions that seek to ensure that mediation services are provided in this country, in a disciplined manner in compliance with universally accepted standards.

* Perhaps, inspired by the statutory obligation imposed on judges to attempt pretrial settlement of disputes, in terms of the Small Claims Court Act and the Small Claims Court Procedure Act (both of 2022) and the Civil Procedure Code provisions on Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Orders, 125 District Judges were recently trained (with support from the ADB) in Mediation. The training provided a dual benefit – it provided training in skills that are required to settle disputes and equally importantly, provided a comprehensive understanding of how mediation will function when judges themselves refer disputes for settlement by private mediators.

* Trained Mediators are already conducting mediations with success.

* A not-for-profit guarantee company, the International ADR Centre – www.iadrc.lk ) was established in 2018 as a joint venture of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law & Practice (ICLP) to promote ADR and is actively engaged in promoting mediation through training, disseminating information and creating awareness among stakeholders, including the business sector. In addition to the International ADR Centre, “Udecide” is a project that promotes training of mediators and other activities that enrich the mediation culture.

* Commercial Mediation has been included in the Masters level programme at the Colombo University;

* The Sri Lanka Law College offers a component on Mediation in the Post Attorney Diploma programme, which commenced recently.

The private sector was actively engaged in the drafting of the Mediation Bill under the leadership of the International ADR Centre, which held many stakeholder consultations to obtain feedback from those that were conversant with the subject. The Centre had previously assisted the government to draft the UN Mediation Convention Act (Act No. 5 of 2024).

Several international Organisations that previously provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration, have provided for institutional rules to provide mediation services. These include WIPO and the ICC. Specifically, in relation to Investor State dispute resolution (ISDR), the International Bar Association (IBA) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2012 and ICSID (of the World Bank group) adopted its Mediation Rules in 2022. UNCITRAL, which is currently working on reforming ISDR, promotes mediation, observing that the use of mediation could reduce the costs of ISDS and also preserve relationships between the investor and the State. UNCITRAL has formulated provisions on and Guidelines for, Mediation for investor state dispute resolution.

(To be continued)

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney-at-Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Centre.

Features

A Testament to the Sri Lankan family

Published

13 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The passing of Dr. Devanesan Nesiah a few days ago brought back memories that spanned more than four decades. Devanesan signed the witness register at my marriage in 2002. It was a year of hope. The Ceasefire Agreement between the government and the LTTE had brought a respite from a war that had devastated the country for nearly two decades. The possibility of peace seemed real. It was fitting that Devanesan should be present on that occasion because his entire life was dedicated to building bridges across divides and seeking rational and humane solutions to conflict. He was a friend, mentor, and guide whose life embodied values that Sri Lanka, indeed the world, needs today.

In reflecting on Dr. Nesiah’s life, we need to be reminded that the forces that unite us as a people in Sri Lanka are stronger than those that divide us, and that the bonds of human affection can transcend even the deepest divisions of ethnicity, history and politics. I first met him in 1984. I had just had my very first newspaper article published in the Jaffna-based Saturday Review. The editor was Gamini Navaratne, a Sinhalese. This was a reminder that even during the darkest period of ethnic conflict, the bonds between communities remained strong. The article I had written was based on my encounters with the anti-Tamil violence of July 1983.

At that time, Dr Nesiah was the Government Agent of Jaffna. Tens of thousands of Tamil people who had fled violence in the south had been transported to the north by a government that had failed to protect them. He came up to me at an event, introduced himself, and told me that he liked what I had written. He also said that he would soon be leaving for Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and that we could meet there. Over the next three years, Devanesan and his wife Anita adopted me into their family. I used to visit them two or three times a week, not only to be given meals by Anita but to discuss matters with Devanesan. These included the academic papers and newspaper articles that were written. Later, Anita earned her PhD in religion and served on the boards of many civic organisations, including the National Peace Council.

Practical Solution

In 1992, we had both returned to work in Sri Lanka when Devanesan invited me to accompany him to Jaffna to celebrate the eightieth birthday of his father, K Nesiah, the distinguished educationist affectionately known as Professor Nesiah. The older Nesiah had been a leading member of the Jaffna Youth Congress. This remarkable movement championed complete independence from British rule, national unity, and the eradication of social inequalities based on caste and communal identity.

At a time when many feared that independence would lead to majoritarian domination, the leaders of the Youth Congress chose instead to place their faith in a shared Sri Lankan future. They believed that people from different communities could build a common nation while preserving their distinctive identities. So did Devanesan. This vision remains relevant today. It needs to be actualized.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s post-independence history is not that diversity exists. Diversity exists in every society. The tragedy is that we often allow diversity to become a source of fear, though we share many of the same values of family, hospitality, respect for elders and compassion towards others. During our visit to Jaffna in 1992, we met representatives of the LTTE administration, including Raheem. The discussion turned to the controversial issue of merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Dr Nesiah argued that if the merger could not be achieved due to political opposition, it might be more rational to seek greater powers for provincial councils instead. Raheem disagreed. Devanesan was interested in finding practical ways to achieve justice and coexistence. That was characteristic of him.

Devanesan Nesiah was a student of conflict and strategy. He became a doctoral student of Professor Thomas Schelling, who would later receive the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on conflict and cooperation. Schelling’s insight was that even in the midst of conflict, there are usually common interests that adversaries share. Even adversaries locked in a struggle usually depend on each other for the outcome they each want. The challenge is to identify those common interests and build upon them. Conflict is not simply a contest between enemies. It is also a search for ways to coexist. Together as students and peace practitioners, we applied those theories to the Sri Lankan context to understand what was going on and to share that understanding with the Sri Lankan people.

Rational Empathy

Dr Nesiah spoke his mind, truth to power. He was a man of logic, rationality, and principle. His integrity came at a cost. His public service career experienced many ups and downs because he refused to accommodate irrational or corrupt demands. There were periods when he was sidelined into that administrative limbo known as the “pool” and assigned no substantive responsibilities for refusing to give in to political demands. Like the rest of his larger family, most notably the Hoole family of Jaffna, he would not abandon his principles. In 2018, to protest the action of President Maithripala Sirisena in sacking the then government he returned his Deshamanya Award (Pride of the Nation) national civil honourn which was soon thereafter overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. His commitment was not to personal advancement, but to what he believed was right.

My wife Sumadhu recalls a story he told her. One day, while travelling on official duty, he told her how he had seen a thalagoya, a monitor lizard, trussed up and being taken away for slaughter. The sight of the creature’s suffering affected him deeply. He said he saw tears in its eyes and described the moment of awakening. From that day onwards, he gave up eating meat.

The story brings to mind the biblical story of the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus and the Buddhist exhortation, “May all living beings be well and happy.” But the deeper significance lies not in religious comparison. It lies in the awakening of empathy.

That was the essence of Dr Devanesan Nesiah’s worldview. The prejudices that society often imposes through ethnicity, religion, caste, or gender had little hold on him. He saw them as human constructs that often served to privilege some while excluding others. Such were his values that made him an extraordinary human being. Dr. Nesiah lived according to that understanding. He showed that integrity can survive amidst conflict. He reminded us that reason and compassion are not opposites but partners, that what unites us as Sri Lankans inhabiting our common island home has always been greater than what divides us, and we need to build our institutions accordingly.

I am proud that he was my friend. I am grateful that he was my mentor.

by Jehan Perera

Features

City of Dreams …Heartbeat of Colombo

Published

13 hours ago

2026/06/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

Enroute

If Colombo’s nightlife had a pulse, you’d find it 23 floors up, at Gatz, City of Dreams, Cinnamon Life.

The entertainment lounge has shed its old skin and stepped out supper-club style — think dim lights, clinking glasses, and live music that doesn’t ask you to choose between dinner and a show. You get both.

What’s more, at the new look Gatz the music never stops and it’s all happening seven nights a week … with live entertainment, and this is the scene, beat by beat:

Monday and Tuesday: Top Hats with Daniella/Naomi, from 7.00 pm onwards.

Sohan, Kamal Munasinghe (GM, Cinnamon Life) and Imran of
Funtime Entertainments

One of Colombo’s most sought-after bands is now a Monday-Tuesday ritual.

With a super repertoire, Top Hats can swing from lounge jazz to dancefloor fire. Big venues love them. Now Gatz gets to claim them.

Wednesday: Enroute with Gananath & Debbie – from 7.00 pm onwards.

Want New York at sunset? This is it. Gananath & Debbie transport you straight to the heady days of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Ray Charles …old-school cool, live and unfiltered.

Thursday to Sunday: Terry & the Big Spenders – from 8.00 pm onwards.

Terry & The Big Spenders

The crowd favourite. A super big band sound that owns the 70s, 80s and 90s.

If you’ve been waiting for horns, harmonies, and nostalgia with volume, Terry & the Big Spenders deliver it nightly. No wonder they’re a huge hit.

Gatz is now an entertainment lounge, in Supper Club style, with Happy Hour very day, from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm because the night, they say, should start with a toast.

And, from July, weekends at the Gatz go global. Local and foreign guest stars will be around to entertain you. Gatz is certainly booking big.

Wow! That would be another exciting experience for those patronising the most talked about venue in town.

In charge of the new setup is our legendary entertainer/singer Sohan Weerasinghe, along with Imran of Funtime Entertainment.

The twosome, with invaluable assistance from the General Manager, Kamal Munasinghe, and the entire team at Cinnamon Life, have built Gatz into more than a venue. They have turned it into the “Heartbeat of the City.”

So come for happy hour. Stay for Terry’s horns, Sing-along with Enroute and Dance with Top Hats, all on the 23rd floor, and while Colombo sparkles below the bands will take you higher.

Remember, the heartbeat is loudest at Gatz.