Features
Are we educating our children in right way?
Need for rethink on Sri Lankan education
By Professor W. A. J. M. De Costa
Senior Professor and Chair of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya
A few months ago, a former student of mine doing a PhD in Computational Biology in a top-ranked US university, while holding a teaching assistantship in the same university, called me. She was quite upset that the undergraduate students in her laboratory practical class had openly confronted her and told that her weekly quizzes were too difficult. On inquiring what was too difficult, they had said that her questions were not directly from their lecture notes or practical guidebook and that the students could not anticipate the type of questions that were coming. I knew that my former student spends a lot of time and effort in formulating questions for her weekly quizzes, making sure that her questions stimulate the thinking of students when searching for the answer and force them to apply the theory that they had learned in the lecture to solve a practical problem. However, the reaction of the students (she did not tell me whether the students who protested openly were a majority or not) clearly showed that they did not like being taken out of their comfort zone. While I was surprised that this incident happened in a top-ranked US university, it wouldn’t have surprised me in the least if it had happened in a Sri Lanka university. This would have been a common occurrence in Sri Lankan universities, if not for the semblance of outward respect (and a considerable measure of the fear of reprisal) for lecturers that is still maintained in Sri Lankan universities, thanks to the eastern culture. Nevertheless, it is an incident that begs the question whether the learning habits, that are nurtured by the system of education in Sri Lanka from childhood onwards, are in fact the right ones, both for the individual and for the country as a whole. Based on my experience of teaching in a leading Sri Lankan university for over thirty years, following a period of four years as an undergraduate in the same university, the answer to the above question is an emphatic ‘No’. What saddens and disappoints me is the observation that the learning habits of the students as well as the teaching habits of the lecturers have ‘moved in the wrong direction’ so that the future does not look promising in terms of producing a graduate who fulfils the needs of the country which spends so much on the so-called ‘free education’. In this article, I wish to highlight some of the fundamental flaws in the way Sri Lanka educates its young generation.
A system of education and a population of students driven by examinations and rote learning
Sri Lankan education is a succession of examinations, starting with the Grade Five scholarship exam, followed by the GCE O/L and the GCE A/L, and continuing in the universities. All these examinations are structured in a pattern that has been set for well over several decades, with very little change. They are also based on curricula which are very heavy on subject content. The extremely competitive nature of these examinations, especially, the Grade Five scholarship exam, which offers the possibility of entrance to the so-called ‘elite’ schools, and the GCE A/L, which offers admission to an extremely limited number of university places, forces students into a set of learning habits which are detrimental to the development of their creative capabilities and critical thinking. The private tuition culture which started in the late 1970s has developed into a very elaborate network, which caters exactly to the needs of the examinations. The teaching is meticulously focused on developing the students’ capabilities to do well in the competitive examinations. This teaching is accompanied by preparing the students for examinations by getting them to practice answering questions from examinations of previous years. This is widely prevalent even in the Physical Science stream, which consists of subjects such as Mathematics and Physics, where logical reasoning rather than memorising is the skill that needs to be developed. Instead, ‘practice makes perfect’ has been the rationale, with the perception that a student who has done a greater number of similar questions has a greater probability of doing well in an examination, where questions are set according to a pattern that has been set and continued for over several decades. I was surprised to learn about 10 years ago that in the GCE(A/L), this practice of answering questions from previous years has moved on to memorising model answers written by a tuition teacher. This culture of rote learning has advanced to such an extent that ‘tuition classes’ are held for prospective entrants to the medical and engineering faculties on the subjects that they will learn during their first year in the university.
For the students who come through this dizzying maze of tuition classes, revision classes and practice examinations, and get into the university (only about 2% of the population in any age cohort), a set of learning habits that strengthens their habit of rote learning awaits in the university system. They are given access to the lecture notes of senior students and a group of supposedly competent senior students conduct what are called ‘Kuppi Classes’, which is a system ‘tuition classes’ aimed at filling the brain with subject content prior to the examinations (hence the meaning ‘filling the small bottle’ which is the brain). During a visit to a leading university in the Western Province which coincided with an examination period, I came across a ‘Kuppi Time Table’ for students in the Faculty of Science in the students’ canteen, which demonstrated the extent to which this culture of rote learning aimed at passing examinations was prevalent among the university student community. In science-based degree programmes with significant components of laboratory and field practical classes, it is common practice for a large majority of students to copy the lab report of a few supposedly competent students in the batch. This whole culture is strengthened and perpetuated by the institutionalised practice of ‘ragging’, strongly supported by the Students’ Unions, where students who do not subject themselves to ragging are denied access to the ‘Kuppi classes’ and the lecture notes of their seniors. The end product of all this is a graduate who expects a previously set pattern to bench mark his preparations to every single challenge that he/she faces in his/her profession. Preparation based on the practice of solving/meeting a similar problem/challenge that had occurred in the past is often the only strategy that these graduates know about. Hence, it is no wonder that they become almost clueless when the problems/challenges that come their way in their profession deviate even slightly from those that had come previously. This also explains the widespread incompetence in problem-solving among the government officials, at all levels of administration. While the politicians are rightly blamed for the current plight of Sri Lanka and its long-term post-independence failure, the system of education that has produced a set of mediocre and sub-competent officials, technical experts and bureaucrats should share the blame in equal measure.
The role of educators
A system that produces a majority of ineffective/sub-standard graduates, devoid of key competences, cannot have survived for so long if it has not been strengthened, wittingly or unwittingly, by its other stakeholders. In this regard, the educators, consisting of the curriculum experts in the relevant governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Education, and academics in the university faculties have failed in designing and implementing a system of education, curricula and examinations which are much less dependent on rote learning practices for success. Curricula have been progressively expanded with more and more information reflecting advances in the respective subject areas and disciplines. However, there has not been a proportional removal of outdated information so that the subject content that the students have to study has continued to expand in volume. Such an expansion reduces the space for students to engage in learning by exploration via reading and discussion, thus forcing them towards repeated reading and memorising of a set of lecture notes. The examinations have been made highly structured, which takes the novelty out of the questions. What makes the matters worse are the evaluation schemes where only answers containing specific words or sentences are considered ‘correct’ while answers containing the same meaning but written in different words and sentences are considered ‘incorrect’.
This practice is especially prevalent in the evaluation schemes of the GCE A/L examination. Such highly structured and repetitive examination papers and marking schemes inevitably condition the students’ minds to anticipate a certain structure and type of questions and write a certain type of answer, which has been memorised and/or practiced in advance. While such psychological conditioning helps the students to do well in examinations, it also leaves them clueless when confronted with an examination paper or a question, which deviates even slightly from the pattern of the previous years. Therefore, it is no wonder that the majority of students who graduate through such a system of evaluation are incapable of problem-solving and ‘out of the box’ thinking when confronted with real-life problems in their professional work environments. Such work environments include the very institutions which provide education where generations of teachers and lecturers who have come through this system perpetuate the same system.
During the 1990s, almost all universities and faculties in Sri Lanka converted their curricula to the so-called ‘course unit’ system. The whole subjects, which had hitherto been taught over the course of one academic year and evaluated in year-end examinations, were broken in to several smaller ‘course units’, which were evaluated at a higher frequency (the so-called continuous evaluation) via a series of quizzes, written assignments and mid-term and end-term examinations. This system of teaching and learning is practiced in an overwhelming majority of universities globally and the merits of continuous evaluation appear to be advocated by an equally overwhelming majority of education experts. However, as a product of the old ‘whole subject-one examination’ system, I have observed, over the course of the last three decades, several flaws in directly transplanting the ‘course unit’ system (which at that time was predominantly prevalent in the US and Canadian Universities, but not in the European Universities) in Sri Lanka on a student population who are psychologically conditioned in to rote learning within an examination-oriented system of education. The biggest flaw is the fragmentation of the process of learning and the subsequent knowledge gained and retained by the students. When one whole subject is broken down to several smaller units which are evaluated separately, the students’ learning is focused on getting through the smaller units. In this process, understanding the connections between different smaller units and building inter-relationships between different aspects of a whole subject, which is an integral aspect of deeper learning, is neglected. It has been a common experience for us teachers to find that students have forgotten most of what they had learned previously in the course units which had been completed and examined. It is a direct result of the ‘Kuppi’ type of learning where the ‘small bottle’ which is filled just before the examination is emptied as soon as the examination is over!
Introduction of the course unit system to Sri Lankan universities caused a change in student behaviour which, arguably, has had far-reaching consequences. The increased frequency of assessments and examinations on an already examination-oriented student population directed them even more towards preparing for examinations (often via rote learning methods and ‘Kuppi’ classes) at the expense of spending time on sports and extra-curricular activities, which are essential components of the holistic development of a ‘complete’ graduate and a human being. The weaning of students away from sports and extra-curricular activities from the 1990s onwards was clearly evident in a large residential university such as the University of Peradeniya, which offers a wide range of facilities and opportunities for sports and extra-curricular activities. There is no doubt that the introduction of the ‘course-unit’ system of curricula was the major cause of this shift in student behaviour. During my time as an undergraduate in Peradeniya in the early- to mid-1980s, I remember many of my own batchmates, who had not previously engaged in sports and extra-curricular activities during their school days, getting involved and participating in games and activities and thoroughly enjoying the experience despite not being in the official university teams.
Concluding remarks
The underlying structural flaws in the Sri Lankan system of education, teaching and learning is often hidden by the argument that many (but only a tiny fraction of the whole) Sri Lankans who have come through this system have gone on to reach top rungs in their chosen professions in the developed west. However, the true test of an education system of a country is that it should produce a human resource base equipped with competencies (and values) which are required to address the multi-pronged challenges that the country faces in trying to bring about its national development and prosperity. The trajectory that Sri Lanka has travelled as a nation during its 75-year post-independence period and the patently evident current trend of brain drain brings into stark question whether its ‘free-education’ has achieved its intended objectives. It is clear that a comprehensive re-think and a careful overhaul of the current Sri Lankan education system, including its core principles, values and modes of operation, is essential for the country to realize the full potential of its human resource base for the benefit of its own development and prosperity.
The writer has been a university teacher and a researcher for more than thirty five years and has received special training in university staff development, including teaching and learning methodology, at the University of Kassel, Germany.
Features
Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century
In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.
Ceasefire Hopes
Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.
Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.
Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.
In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”
Subversion from the Right
The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.
The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.
In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.
Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.
In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.
Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.
The rise and fall of Viktor Orban
Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.
At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.
To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.
Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.
During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.
Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.
The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.
Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.
For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.
The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.
EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.
by Rajan Philips
Features
ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries
Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.
ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.
At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.
By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.
Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.
Exhibition Details:
Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5
Features
Our Teardrop
BOOK REVIEW
Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)
Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3
The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.
On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.
Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.
Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.
However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.
There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.
There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.
L S M Pillai
-
Latest News7 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT arrive in Colombo
-
Latest News6 days agoPrasidh, Buttler set up comfortable win for Gujarat Titans
-
News4 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Latest News5 days ago“I extend my heartfelt wishes to all Sri Lankans for a peaceful and joyous Sinhala and Tamil New Year!” – President
-
Latest News6 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say
-
News1 day agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News6 days agoSalt and Patidar power RCB past Mumbai Indians

