Features
Battling the Tea Board and vested trade interests
“Tea Hub” was a toxic proposal that would have hurt pure Ceylon tea
(Excerpted from the Merrill. J. Fernando autobiography)
My fervent appeals to the Tea Board for assistance to local brand builders to develop own brands were, as I said earlier, supported by Victor Santiapillai. My strategy proposal to launch ‘Dilmah’ in Australia as a fully Sri Lankan-owned tea brand was the first such initiative presented to the Tea Board. The Board was enthusiastic and voted the funds I solicited – approximately Australian Dollars 300,000 (Rs. 5.9 million then).
However, the Secretariat bureaucracy, without consulting me, submitted a paper proposing that my project, and all future projects, should be funded on 50/50 basis, between the Board and the exporter. This was, actually, a great blow to my plans, as a tea bagging project is an enormously costly exercise, requiring extensive investment in plant and machinery.
The opposition to my project from the Secretariat is demonstrated by one single fact; the Dilmah initiative went before the Funding Committee – consisting of Government nominees of the Board – no less than 21 times, before it was approved! The many projects which were approved at a single sitting disappeared from view within a short space of time. The Dilmah project, approved so grudgingly by this Funding Committee, is the only such initiative still in successful operation.
Finally, following comprehensive clarifications on brand building and launching expenditure submitted by me to the Tea Board, supported by Santiapillai, as I have mentioned earlier in this chapter, it was agreed that such costs would be shared on an equal basis by the EDB, Tea Board, and Dilmah. Despite the delayed approval, my project continued to be plagued by the tardiness and active opposition by key members of the Secretariat.
The Tea Board share of the promotional costs was unduly delayed, causing me and my distributor in Australia serious embarrassment. Dr. Wickrema Weerasooria, then High Commissioner for Sri Lanka in Australia, had to intervene several times on my behalf with the Chairman of the SLTB, though his appeals were stifled by the Secretariat. At no stage in these painful exercises did I appeal for assistance to the Plantations Minister, Major Jayawickrema, who had ceased to be my father-in-law 12 years previously.
Today, Dilmah carries the message of Pure Ceylon Tea to over 100 countries worldwide. Had I succumbed to the animosity generated against the Dilmah project at the outset, today there would not be one locally-owned label, selling successfully in overseas markets dominated by multinationals. As opposed to that, over the decades the Tea Board has invested millions of dollars, fruitlessly, in a multiplicity of tea promotional projects, but Dilmah remains the only success story, proving beyond doubt that my company was the right partner then for the EDB/SLTB project, to represent Pure Ceylon Tea in an overseas market.
More conflict
One of the main reasons for my numerous conflicts with the long-established trade bodies was their general resistance to change and to my insistence on a more proactive approach from those bodies. The industry in Sri Lanka, on account of its vulnerability to both internal and external dynamics consumption patterns, international financial upheavals, regional conflicts and many more is a highly-volatile system. Our trade governance and regulatory bodies seemed to be entrenched in an archaic mindset, with a singular inability, or reluctance, to offer proactive responses to predictable market disruptions. The tendency seemed to be to jealously guard the status quo.
Once, in a move to change the entrenched ‘clubbiness’ of the CTTA, we enabled the election of Lofty Wijeratne, then a Director of Carsons, as Chairman. Despite requests from many members of the trade, I steadfastly refused to consider the position myself. Lofty, too, was subject to many pressures from vested interests within. I recall a request he made to me, obviously due to compulsion from established
brokers, not to support Ajit Chitty’s application for a tea broker’s license. I disagreed and persisted in my support of Ajit, as I was of the firm view that the trade should encourage the emergence of more local companies. Finally, Ajit entered the broking fraternity with Eastern Brokers and made a very good thing of it.
I am also aware that during this period, when I was involved with numerous issues impacting on the interests of the local exporter, CTTA representatives had been instructed by the relevant British masters to oppose any and all of my initiatives and proposals. In the many years of its existence, the CTTA has, on the whole, done a reasonable job in protecting and fostering industry interests. However, my view is that the constant pressures brought on it by a wide spectrum of industry-related parties and entities has, in recent decades, prevented it from a strict and objective pursuit of its mandate.
When the British dominated every aspect of the tea industry, there was no dissent or conflict of interest, as there was tacit agreement that the CTTA and every other trade-related body was committed to the protection of British interests. The Chamber of Commerce too was not free of this type of internal manipulation and inbuilt politicking. One year I was appointed to the committee of the Chamber. At my very first meeting, a very senior member with strong interests in banking brought in a related issue which was not on the agenda. My objection to the discussion of this item, on those very grounds, was accepted and the matter was dropped immediately.
Within two weeks, Suneetha Jayawickreme, who was then Secretary of the Chamber, called me to advise that a regulation of the Chamber precluded two individuals from the same group of companies from serving on the committee simultaneously. He pointed out that Jayasingham of Harrisons & Crossfield and I were both on the Harrisons Travel Services Board, and that in compliance with the Chamber stipulation, I should resign. I immediately did so, without even waiting for a written confirmation of the discussion. I was actually amused that interested parties had used a legitimate convention, though the association was tenuous, to ease out an individual who was, obviously, not prepared to toe the general line.
I must also state that the criticisms I have leveled against all these boards is in connection with their administration and trajectories as of the early 1970s and across the ’80s. That era is now history, though the consequences of both inaction and misdirected strategies of that time were long-term impediments to the development of the country’s tea export trade. The thinking within those entities is far more balanced and enlightened now, the Tea Exporter’s Association excluded, for reasons which I will explain in a subsequent chapter.
An attempted reconciliation
When a group of traders decided that their parochial interests should supersede industry welfare in its totality, and sought to launch the Tea Exporters’ Association (TEA), I believe that all traders, without exception, supported the move. Several senior members invited me to join but I refused, giving them very good reasons for my opposition to it. One of the members was the late Michael de Zoysa, then Managing Director of Lipton and for many years a prime mover in the CTTA.
He and I frequently disagreed with each other on a number of important trade-related issues. After his retirement from Lipton also he approached me on several occasions and tried to persuade me to join the TEA, on the grounds that the trade was now thinking differently and that they would like to consider my views seriously and work together for common goals.
At first I refused to engage in any discussion on the matter but, finally, after several personal approaches by Michael, I agreed to meet a six-member team of trade representatives led by him. During his years at Lipton, our frequently-conflicting views on common trade-related issues had led to a certain frostiness in our relationship, although we had known each other for years.
I appreciated that as a senior manager of a multinational trader, which he had joined straight from school, he was obliged to guard its interests which, however, were generally inconsistent with those of the local exporter of a locally-owned brand. Things between us changed substantially after his retirement, though, and our relationship became more relaxed, particularly because, once freed from the professional obligation of serving the narrow interests of a multinational, he was able to take a more objective and liberal view of the trade.
Fate, however, does not respect human motives or human plans. Tragically, Michael died suddenly and, instead of chairing the meeting that was scheduled to be held at my home on September 30, 2019, I attended his funeral on that day. Along with Michael, the possibility of a reunification of divergent tea trade interests was also laid to rest. Despite our differences, we treated each other with respect, as we were both men with strong opinions on subjects that were also our passion.
The tea hub – a toxic proposal
In my view, in no other concept or proposal, is the venality of many of our tea traders and their submissiveness to colonial and multinational domination, as clearly demonstrated, as in the arguments that have been offered in support of the ‘Tea Hub’ hypothesis. In essence, the Tea Hub concept is an initiative to import cheap Black Tea to Sri Lanka, for blending with our tea and for re-export thereafter. The component of cheap, imported tea in the blend, would reduce the cost of the resulting export and improve the profit margin of the local packer. This concept has a long history.
The cloud in the horizon
In 1979, the then Minister of Trade, the late Lalith Athulathmudali, visited the Rotterdam factory of Van Rees, a multinational trader. It was a centre for the bulking, blending, and packaging of cheap tea from multiple auction centres, sold thereafter in the Netherlands and various other European markets. Minister Athulathmudali, ignorant of the background realities of the local trade, had been deeply impressed by the scale of the Van Rees operation and, on his return, strongly advocated the setting up of a similar facility in Sri Lanka. When his views were made public, I vehemently objected to the proposal, giving reasons for my stance.
Athulathmudali was adamant but, fortunately, the then President, J. R. Jayewardene, summoned me, obtained my views, and immediately decided to shelve the idea. To the best of my recollection that was the first public airing of the Tea Hub concept. Since then, from time to time, the proposal has surfaced, on the initiative of traders who believe that selling Ceylon Tea cheap is the way forward.
I also recall that in late 1988, R. M. B. Senanayake, former civil servant and then General Manager of Jafferjee Brothers, in a newspaper article, suggested that whenever Ceylon Tea prices move up, exporters should be permitted to import cheaper tea for blending, in place of Tea. My reaction to it then was consternation, that a man who -lave known better should publicly advocate a policy with such potential for damage to the local tea industry.
New developments
On August 1, 2011, the trade members of the Tea Council of the Sri Lanka Tea Board, acting on behalf of the Tea Exporters’ Association submitted to the Tea Council of which I was then Chairman proposal to lift the existing restrictions on the importation of Orthodox Black Tea. Whilst as Chairman of the council I did not express my opinion on the matter, I refuted the proposal in my personal capacity as an exporter and in the larger interests of the tea industry the country.
In the many adverse opinions that were expressed regarding my position on this issue, and of my subsequent vocal and active opposition to the proposal, what was conveniently ignored by all my opponents was that liberalization of Black Tea imports would be greatly advantageous to my own label, ‘Dilmah’. With the global outreach of that brand and the marketing and distribution network which reinforced its overseas sales in over 100 countries, I stood to gain more than any other local exporter by the liberalization of Black Tea importation.
The provision to import specialty tea, not traditionally manufactured locally, is permitted by statute. If I recall rightly, such importation was first permitted in 1981 and the relevant conditions revised in 1994. The 1981 provision was withdrawn when Montague Jayawickrema, then Minister of Plantations, on a visit to Egypt with a trade delegation, ascertained for himself that exporters had been blending cheap Chinese tea with Ceylon Tea in order to reduce the blend cost and were providing the Egyptian market with a very low quality product, which was being perceived by the consumer as Ceylon Tea.
Ironically, that is a perfect example of the proposed methodology of the Tea Hub and, also, its likely outcome. There is no argument against the limited facilities available to the serious exporter for the importation of specialty tea such Darjeeling, select Assams, or other non-traditional varieties, not normally produced in this country. It is a legitimate and acceptable strategy used by exporters to widen their export product portfolio. Such teas are, invariably, far more costly on an average than Ceylon Tea and the Government permits imports of such varieties without restriction.
The annual importation of specialty tea is around five million kg per year, equivalent to two percent of the average annual Black Tea production of Sri Lanka, and is a volume which has no impact on the local industry. A Tea Hub is of immense attraction to the multinational trader or the local exporter, who packs on his behalf. It will enable the former to source his product at low cost, with zero investment in infrastructure, as that will be provided by his local servant at the latter’s cost.
Foreign label owners have no loyalty, either to the country of operation, the operation itself, or even to the consumer. He is motivated entirely by the bottom line and when appropriate, he will move out to another location which is able to serve his needs at a lower cost. This is an inevitable progression and can be illustrated with real-life examples.
Flawed logic
In their support of the Tea Hub proposal, the TEA submitted a wide range of arguments, all virtuously clothed to project an image of potential advantages to the local tea industry, when the actual intent was simply lowering the cost of their export blend.
One of the major planks of the TEA platform has been the totally unsupported premise, that the Tea Hub would soon result in growing the present annual export value of Ceylon Tea, from USD 1.2 billion to USD 5 billion. This hypothesis was never supported by either strategy, complementing arithmetic, or a financially-verifiable equation, and still remains a pathetic piece of wishful thinking. One of their primary concerns is that the high value of Ceylon Tea is an impediment to the servicing of international markets, and that the local opponents of the concept should not be apprehensive, that importation of cheap tea would devalue equivalent grades at the Colombo Auction.
Such arguments defy the simplest concepts of product supply, demand, and price dynamics, and do not merit an elaborate rebuttal. The Tea Hub proposal is based on plain self-delusion, garnished by unverifiable and statistically-unsupportable assumptions. A favourite theory of many economists and marketing consultants with absolutely no practical knowledge of the local tea industry in its totality is based on the feeble assumption that Sri Lankans are not capable of building brands and, therefore, the best option is to reduce Pure Ceylon Tea to the status of a commodity, or a raw material, for branding and value addition elsewhere.
Annually, we produce around 300 million kg of tea and sell all of it at the Colombo Auction, at the highest average price of any auction centre. On an average, we are generally around USD 1 higher than the second highest auction centre, Nairobi. With their wide-ranging arguments for a Tea Hub, that is the real issue that its proponents wish to address; the relatively high auction price in Colombo. The trader who is exporting a cheap commodity at Rs. 500 – Rs. 600 per kg is unable to compete with the local entrepreneur who is exporting a genuine good quality Ceylon Tea, with value added, at Rs. 1,000 per kg or more.
Even the Tea Hub proponents agree that Pure Ceylon Tea is of the finest quality. It does not require marketing expertise to conclude that a product which justifiably claims to be the best in quality must then be marketed at a commensurate price. That is an argument which any consumer will accept. For instance, there there are markets for both `Plonk’ and for high quality wine, with a massive price differential between the two. The Unique Selling Point of the former is price, whilst that of the latter is quality, which is where quality Ceylon Tea belongs.
Another argument that the Tea Hub offers is the increase of export volume, through importation and re-export after blending. Judging the effectiveness of an export operation by volume alone is a serious mistake, as it distorts realities. What is relevant is not the volume and foreign exchange earned, but the contribution to actual value. Heavy exports of bulk tea and crudely-presented small packs, meant for cheap markets, bring little or no return to the exporter.
Those are simply services provided to the multinational trader, by the local packer, with marginal corresponding benefits to the country of production. Value addition to the home-grown product, in the country of origin, is the only strategy which will ensure that all those in the commercial chain, from the farmer to the exporter, reap equitable benefits.
Features
True Santa & Fake Santa in the US. NPP underwhelmed by Square-toed Critics
A telling Christmas cartoon in a Canadian newspaper (The Globe and Mail) shows the American Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents apprehending and attacking Santa Claus as he lands in the US presumably without a visa. For their part, ICE agents have gone a step worse and got one of their men to be a fake Santa, with an ICE logo, in an advertisement that promises US immigrants a payment of $3,000 and free flight ‘home’ for Christmas if they would voluntarily turn themselves in. The overexcited and out-of-depth Department of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noam has added her two cents: “Illegal aliens should take advantage of this gift and self-deport.”
That is Trump’s America and it is at terrible odds with the historical image of America that the first American Pope in Vatican devoutly cherishes and is unabashedly defending. Paraphrasing the gospel of Matthew, the Pope had pointedly admonished, “Jesus says very clearly, at the end of the world, we’re going to be asked, ‘How did you receive the foreigner?” The American Bishops followed suit and in a rare rebuke of the Administration, have expressed their “concern for the evolving situation impacting immigrants in the United States”.
But not all American Catholics are with the Pope and their Bishops. Sixty percent of white American Catholics are said to be in favour of Trump’s vicious crackdown on immigrants. They and their voluble intelligentsia are a bulwark of Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) bandwagon. Five of the nine Supreme Court judges are conservative white Catholics. They are aided and abetted by Clarence Thomas, the lone male African-American and conservative judge on the bench. The six judges, ignoring the dissenting liberal judges, have been giving judicial cover to practically all of Trump’s controversial second term initiatives.
The new bullhorn foreign policy towards Europe is the speciality of Vice President JD Vance, a late convert to Catholicism and married to a Hindu Indo-American. The oversight of Central and South America is the responsibility America’s new neocons, the Cuban neocons, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Catholic Cuban American with a ton of chips on his shoulders. Trump used to deride him as “little Marco.” Marco Rubio wants the US to browbeat Venezuela and use it as an example to other Latin American countries.
But Trump’s support is falling and almost all of his new initiatives are beginning to unravel even before he has finished the first year of his second term. Even among Catholics who are 20% of the population numbering 50 million, the 60% support of white American Catholics is negated by the opposition of 70% Hispanics to Trump’s deportation program even though Trump made significant inroad among Hispanics in the 2024 election. Among all Americans Trump has a negative approval rating with nearly 60% of Americans dissatisfied with his policies and performance across the board.
At 79, Trump is beginning to walk and talk like Biden when the latter was in office as the oldest American President. Trump is not losing his grip on power but he cannot keep tab on his zealous acolytes as they rush to further their own agendas on immigration, controlling Latin America and jettisoning Europe. It is the economy that is his business. It is literally so insofar as his family is enabled to make as much hay as they can before the curtain crashes. And the country’s economy will be his Achilles Heel just as it was for Biden. Trump will be considerably deflated should the Supreme Court rule against him on the constitutionality of his idiosyncratic tariff scheme. On the other hand, if the Court’s conservative judges were to rule in his favour it will do lasting damage to their already tattered credibility.
Regardless, the Trump presidency is not going to end all of a sudden like in so many other countries including Sri Lanka in 2022. The built in inertia of the US system will provide for the Trump presidency to peter out and for the country to take an even longer time to be rid of the damages he has done to the institutions and to restore them slowly. In the meantime, one would hope that the carnage in Ukraine will be soon brought to an end. And, as Pope Leo XIV said in his Christmas homily, the people “in the tents in Gaza, exposed for weeks to rain, wind and cold, ” should be soon helped out of the “rubble and open wounds.”
While it is too soon to speculate about post-Trump America, Trump’s impact on the American political system over the last 10 (to be 15) years in politics is obvious. First, he was able to instigate a critical mass of people into believing that the mainstream political discourse is a fake enterprise. That was his route to victory in 2016 and much of his first term was about consolidating the belief of his followers that everyone who was opposing him were fake and un-American. He took the next step and made them believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him by the political establishment and was given to Joe Biden. The Trump’s playbook is being adapted by like-minded leaders in other countries to score their own political victories. Accusations of fake news, allegations of stolen elections, and widespread disinformation – i.e. intentionally spreading incorrect information – have now become the stock of politics in a number of countries. Sri Lanka is not one of them but it does manifest symptoms of this new malaise.
The NPP and its Square-toed Critics
Allegations of election fraud have always been a fact of political life Sri Lanka. A sizeable forensic industry grew out of petitioning courts to challenge the results of individual constituency elections based on allegations of fraud and corruption. The two old Left Parties would have none of it and would accept the results of the election based on the official counts. They never challenged the results of any election that was lost by any of its candidates. When the Left was shut out of parliament in 1977, NM Perera wrote for the LSSP that the Party had been shut of the legislature twice in its history. First, from the State Council by colonial Order in Council, and in 1977 by the people themselves. It fought the colonial expulsion but accepted the verdict of the people.
Allegations of foreign interference are also not new. The Left had its routine rhetorical flights to warn of the circumambient presence of imperialism. The UNP countered with homemade stories of Chinese spies. But the first serious questioning of an election result and the accusation of foreign interference came after the 2015 presidential election that saw the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa when he tried to win an illegitimate third term in office. It was also the first defeat of a sitting president. The first reaction was to blame Tamil treachery. The second was to blame the long hand from New Delhi. Neither took serious traction but they created a local genre of political punditry that keeps itself busy.
The Rajapaksas have grown out of it. Their elders have no time for it and their next generation is desperate about finding a future foothold. But their loyal pundits keep churning. The latest addition to this genre of commentary is the finally revealed revelation about the supposedly sensational proposition made by former Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay to former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, on the morning of that fatefully eventful day of 13 July 2022, that Mr. Abeywardena should immediately become Sri Lanka’s new President.
Obviously, this meeting would have taken place after Gotabaya Rajapaksa had fled the country in the wee hours of that same morning. But what is not clear is whether GR’s letter of resignation was already official and whether GR’s appointment of Ranil Wickremesinghe as Acting President had already come into effect. Mr. Wickremesinghe himself has revealed the circumstances of his taking oath as president after GR’s fleeing – that the oath was taken in secrecy in a Colombo Temple – in an interview with former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after a meeting of the International Democracy Union (IDU) in London. The UNP is an IDU member and Harper its Chairman.
There is no reason to question the veracity of Speaker Abeywardena’s account of his meeting with the then Indian High Commissioner, in the Speaker’s parliamentary office. But what is amusing is the use of this single data point of a meeting between the High Commissioner and the Speaker – to draw a line of conclusion in two directions: (1) a causal line going backward to suggest that the entire Aragalaya phenomenon was potentially orchestrated by India and America; and (2) a consequential line going forward to the election of the NPP government with the assertion that the new government came into office after displacing Gotabaya Rajapaksa to serve Sri Lanka’s two masters – India and the US. The people of Sri Lanka are reduced to doormats in this political theatre and their votes were political counterfeits to elect a government of fake Marxists. Even Trump would be impressed by this creativity.
As amusements go, this genre of political punditry is fully supplemented by the NPP’s current critics and quondam comrades from the bookish left (as Philip Gunawardena used to scoff). They take NPP to task for any and all of its actions and non-actions – from its apparent ambivalence towards Israel to its alleged foot dragging on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, not to mention its similarly alleged kneeling before the IMF.
The criticisms themselves are not inaccurate, but their tone and timing do not appear to be intended for any positive outcome. They are also esoteric and out of place in a situation when the country has been ravaged by a torrential cyclone. I will conclude by paraphrasing a witty response to a recent online critique of the NPP on the PTA matter: in blaming the NPP government for not repealing all the bad laws enacted by every previous government, are we not forgetting that the NPP is the only government that is – not only against making use of bad laws enacted by others, but also against enacting any new bad law of its own.
by Rajan Philips ✍️
Features
2025: The Year We Let It Happen
“I was saved by God to make America great again,” Donald Trump said, a line that circulated widely during his political comeback rallies. “The golden age of America begins right now,” Trump declared as he was inaugurated for a second term on 20 January 2025, marking a major shift in US politics with consequences likely to extend across generations. Trump’s appeal lay not in moderation but in confrontation, rooted in the assertion that democracy works best when it produces winners unencumbered by restraint. He rewarded many who delivered him power, while leaders in other democracies often spent their mandates managing survival and retreating from pledges once deemed non-negotiable. The old Marxian line about history repeating itself as tragedy and farce felt newly apt as elections continued to produce both at once.
While deteriorating democratic systems grappled with their contradictions, quasi-democratic and openly authoritarian administrations pursued power with less ceremony. Beijing tightened its hold over Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong while projecting its global power with mixed success, and Moscow prosecuted its war in Ukraine with brutal persistence, accepting sanctions and isolation as the cost of imperial memory. The EU’s plan to use frozen Russian funds for Kyiv stalled and was replaced by a €90 billion loan package, which will cost taxpayers around €3 billion annually in interest. Pyongyang continued its missile testing, while its state-linked hackers reportedly stole an estimated $2.02 billion in cryptocurrency in 2025 alone. Tehran, for its part, passed another turbulent year, marked by a 12-day military confrontation with Israel in June 2025 that inflicted significant damage on both countries. Power in these systems remained centralized and unapologetic, justified by security and sustained by fear.
Across the globe, 2025 witnessed a wave of Gen Z-led protests that challenged authority and disrupted the social order in ways reminiscent of the Arab Spring, yet carried their own perils. From climate strikes in London and Berlin to anti-corruption demonstrations in São Paulo, Mexico City, Dhaka, and Kathmandu, young activists confronted entrenched elites with unprecedented energy and digital coordination. In Morocco, Madagascar, Tunisia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, student-led and youth-driven uprisings rattled governments, while in the United States, marches over climate action and student debt repeatedly clashed with authorities.
Even in authoritarian countries such as Iran, Vietnam, and, to some extent, Thailand, clandestine movements mobilized online and in the streets, forcing concessions while provoking brutal crackdowns. Yet these eruptions of youthful revolt, as electrifying as they were, revealed a dangerous pattern: like the Arab Spring, the protests often destabilized societies without delivering durable reform, leaving governments weakened, institutions strained, and political vacuums that could be exploited by opportunistic elites. The Gen Z moment in 2025 was a showcase of idealism and impatience, but also a warning that the seductive energy of revolt can become the architect of new disorder and unfulfilled promise. The question remains: who will have the last laugh?
The dissonance between public display and private conclave became starkly visible in Beijing in September 2025 during the 80th-anniversary commemorations of the end of the Second World War. State television followed Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin as they approached the parade ground, and microphones accidentally left live picked up a fragment of conversation that ricocheted around the world. According to reports, Putin’s interpreter was heard saying, “Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you live, the younger you become,” to which Xi replied, “Some predict that in this century humans may live to 150 years old.”
The Kremlin later confirmed the exchange, insisting it was a casual discussion about medical advances, not a policy statement. Yet the symbolism was hard to miss: two leaders whose authority rests on longevity speculating, however lightly, about defeating mortality itself. In a century marked by demographic decline in both Russia and China, the fantasy of extended life carried political weight.
That moment intersected with a broader obsession that cut across systems: the promise and threat of artificial intelligence. Governments unable to agree on climate targets found common urgency in machine learning, particularly its military and medical applications. The United States National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence warned in 2021 that AI would “accelerate the speed of warfare beyond human comprehension”. By 2025, the Pentagon had embedded AI across military operations, deploying commercial models and prioritizing generative tools to maintain America’s technological edge.
Project Stargate, a high-profile initiative with commitments from OpenAI, Microsoft, Nvidia, Oracle, and SoftBank, was said to involve hundreds of billions of dollars in public-private investment to expand AI infrastructure and research across sectors. In parallel, China’s state and corporate ecosystems together channeled tens of billions into AI development, sustaining the world’s second-largest cluster of AI firms and an expanding suite of generative tools. Critical minerals remained a strategic fulcrum, with China controlling more than 90 per cent of global rare-earth processing capacity and wielding that dominance as leverage over technology and defence supply chains.
Space in 2025 saw competition in orbit intensify rather than abate. The number of active satellites in low Earth orbit surpassed 9,350, led by SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, which accounts for the largest share of operational spacecraft. The Space Development Agency awarded US$3.5 billion in contracts for 72 new infrared tracking satellites to strengthen missile-warning and defence architecture. China’s on-orbit presence also expanded markedly in 2025, with Beijing conducting a record number of launches and placing hundreds of satellites into space to advance communications and surveillance networks, including early deployments for its ambitious Guowang low Earth orbit mega constellation. Close encounters between Chinese, Russian, and Western satellites exposed weak space-traffic coordination, with orbit increasingly framed in martial rather than peaceful terms.
On the ground, the uglier side of power refused to remain hidden. In the United States, the Epstein Files Transparency Act compelled the Department of Justice to disclose federal records by mid-December, but heavy redactions and omissions drew bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who argued the release undermined the law’s intent and shielded powerful individuals. Thousands of pages referenced disturbing allegations and reinforced a widely held sense that wealth and influence can insulate the well-connected from scrutiny or accountability. Elsewhere, established democracies continued to confront systemic failures: France grappled with unresolved clerical abuse scandals; Britain faced renewed criticism over policing gaps in handling grooming gangs; and India’s chronic under-reporting of sexual violence remained a persistent human rights concern.
Meanwhile, the language of peace was deployed with similar cynicism. Trump repeatedly suggested he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, citing what he described as a series of peace initiatives in which he claimed to have played a decisive role. These included the Abraham Accords of 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, and the 2025 United States-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, under which all remaining living Israeli hostages held by Hamas were released and hostilities were paused through a phased arrangement.
Trump further asserted that his administration had “settled” or eased a widening range of conflicts, pointing to diplomatic efforts aimed at initiating talks towards a negotiated end to the Russia–Ukraine war, although substantive peace terms remain elusive and negotiations continue amid resistance from Kyiv, Moscow, and key European Union states. He also publicly referenced conflicts or diplomatic tracks involving India and Pakistan; Thailand and Cambodia; Kosovo and Serbia; the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda; Israel and Iran; Egypt and Ethiopia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan as evidence of his claimed peacemaking credentials, despite the absence of durable or comprehensive peace settlements in any of these cases.
Trump did not receive the Nobel Prize, whose awards have often favoured aspiration over results. Instead, it went to María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader who told me in 2020 that “a mafia group has destroyed my beloved nation, Venezuela”, and whom Washington now treats as a key ally. Meanwhile, the United States has reportedly sought to seize another oil tanker linked to Caracas while pursuing an alleged drug cartel, amid claims that the Secretary of War ordered forces to “kill them all”. At the same time, Latin America has seen a significant rise in right-wing politics, with Argentina’s Javier Milei consolidating power, Chile electing far-right leader José Antonio Kast, and conservative presidents such as Daniel Noboa in Ecuador and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador gaining influence amid broader regional shifts to the right.
Africa was not immune to global disorder. In Sudan, a brutal civil war between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and rival factions continued throughout 2025, marked by repeated mass atrocities, including ongoing killings around El Fasher in North Darfur that left tens of thousands dead and displaced millions, making it one of the world’s most devastating humanitarian crises. The United Nations and humanitarian agencies reported widespread executions, sexual violence, and attacks on civilians and health facilities. Meanwhile, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, fighting between the Congolese army and the Rwanda-linked M23 rebel group forced thousands to flee, with more than 84,000 refugees crossing into neighbouring Burundi in 2025.
Nigeria’s security situation also deteriorated, with jihadist factions, including Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, expanding operations and causing civilian casualties and displacement. Across West Africa, political realignment followed coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, which jointly withdrew from ECOWAS and formed the Alliance of Sahel States, commonly dubbed the “African NATO”. The bloc has announced plans to establish a shared central bank and investment fund aimed at economic autonomy and reducing reliance on traditional financial systems, but it remains too early to assess its capacity to curb the continent’s growing Islamic extremism and militant gangs.
Through all this, inequality hardened. The latest World Inequality Report 2026 showed that the richest 0.001 per cent of adults — fewer than 60,000 individuals — now control three times more wealth than the poorest half of the global population combined, while the richest 10 per cent own around three-quarters of global wealth. While leaders speculated about extended lifespans and investors poured money into longevity start-ups, life expectancy stagnated or fell in several countries: in the United States it remained lower than a decade earlier, and in parts of sub-Saharan Africa gains were erased by conflict and weak health systems.
Orwell’s line continues to resonate, even at the risk of banality: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” The events of this year have not disproved it; they have updated it with satellites, algorithms, and offshore accounts. Power now moves faster and hides better, but it still feeds on the same asymmetries. As another year closes, the temptation is to wish for renewal without reckoning. That wish has become a luxury. The facts are stubborn: inequality widens, wars persist, technology accelerates without consensus, and leaders speak of salvation while tolerating cruelty. New Year greetings sound hollow against that record, but perhaps honesty is a start. The age we are entering will not be golden by proclamation; it will be judged, as ever, by who is allowed to live with dignity — and who is told, politely or otherwise, to wait. To the New Year — hopefully wiser.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa ✍️
Features
After Christmas Day
We are in this period – the days immediately following Christmas – December 25. The intense religious and festive two days are over, but just as the festive season precedes Christmas Day, it follows it too, notwithstanding the day that marks the beginning of the new year.
Christmas is significant, I need not even mention, as the celebration of Jesus Christ’s birth in Bethlehem in a manger as there was no room at the inn. It however symbolizes God‘s love and salvation for his ‘children’. People make merry with traditional gift giving (custom from the three kings), carols, bright lights concentrated in indoor fir trees and general goodwill epitomized by jolly old Santa. It is also a time of spiritual reflection on God’s love of people by his giving his son to their will.
The day after Christmas – 26 December – is also a day marked in the calendar of the festive season. Named Boxing Day, it too is a holiday of fun. Originally a day of generosity and giving gifts to those in need, it has evolved to become a part of Christmas festivities. It originated in the UK and is observed by several Commonwealth countries, including Ceylon.
It is concurrent with the Christian festival of Saint Stephen’s Day, which in many European countries is considered the second day of Christmas. It honours St. Stephen who was the first Christian martyr who was stoned to death for his faith. More commonly, it is called Boxing Day, also known as Offering Day, for giving servants and the needy gifts and financial help. The term boxing comes from the noun boxes, because alms were collected in boxes placed in Churches and opened for distribution on the day after Christmas. This day is first mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary on 1743.
The Twelve Days of Christmas follow the 25th and make up the Christmas Season. It marks the days the kings of Orienta –Magi – took to visit the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense, symbolizing Christ’s royalty, future suffering and divinity/ priesthood respectively.
The “Twelve days of Christmas” we know as a Christmas carol or children’s nursery rhyme which is cumulative with each verse built on the previous verse. Content of the verses is what the lover gives his /her true love on each of twelve days beginning with Christmas day, so it ends on January 6, which marks the end of the Xmas season. The carol was first published in England in the late 18th century. The best known version is that of Frederic Austen who wrote his rhymes in 1909.
“On the first day of Christmas my true love sent to me
A partridge in a pear tree.
On the second day of Christmas my true love sent to me
Two turtle doves
And a partridge in a pear tree.”
And so on with three hens, four calling birds; five gold rings, six geese a-laying, seven swans a-swimming, eight maids a-milking, nine ladies dancing, ten lords a-leaping, eleven pipers piping, twelve drummers drumming. But the most important fact is that each animal or human represents a Christian object or key tenet of the faith, serving as a religious tool where each gift depicts a religious concept.
For instance, it is believed the partridge symbolizes Jesus and two turtle doves represent the Old and New Testaments. Doves are symbols of truth and peace, once again reinforcing the tie to Christ and Christmas. Reference is also made to the Ten Commandments, the 12 Apostles and the Creed. However, this is a popular theory and not a historic fact with some believing it is a love song pure and simple.
And so 2025 draws to an end. One cannot but throw one’s thoughts back to when one was an eager beaver child. Buddhist though I was, I attended a Christian school from Baby Class and was very influenced by the Christian faith. In fact, an older sister was so indoctrinated she wanted to convert to Christianity. Our Methodist missionary school did not encourage conversions.
Mother was unaware of this great attraction; her emphasis was on an English education for her children,. But being so drawn to the Christian religion with all its celebration and merriment was no surprise, added to the fact that Vesak was such a solemn occasion with sil redi restraint and the death of the Buddha too commemorated.
It is a very heartening fact that in this country Buddhists too join in the pleasures of Christmas. Many go for Midnight Mass on 24th because of religiously mixed marriages or merely to enjoy that experience too. Our family, when the children were young, invariably celebrated with the traditional XMas tree in the house with my husband taking great pleasure in buying a branch of a cypress tree sold in Colombo, and decorating it. We often spent the holiday in Bandarawela and so Christmas became extra special with the strong smell of the tree branch bought indoors. Santa visited my young one for long years; he being a strong believer in the delightful myth.
Delightful memories are made of these…
I wish everyone a wonderful Christmas. Let’s substitute the sorrows and despair of the aftermath of the cyclone and give ourselves, all Sri Lankans, a break and renew our togetherness and one-ness as a nation of decent people..
-
News6 days agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
News4 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
News7 days agoAir quality deteriorating in Sri Lanka
-
News7 days agoCardinal urges govt. not to weaken key socio-cultural institutions
-
Features6 days agoGeneral education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?
-
Opinion7 days agoRanwala crash: Govt. lays bare its true face
-
News6 days agoSuspension of Indian drug part of cover-up by NMRA: Academy of Health Professionals
-
News7 days agoCID probes unauthorised access to PNB’s vessel monitoring system

