Features
Brain-drain reality check: Fighting the wrong battle
How institutional misunderstanding of professional migration undermines effective policy responses
At recent forums, heads of Sri Lanka’s major research institutions and the Secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology have sounded urgent alarms about the country’s “brain drain crisis.” Their diagnosis: Professional migration is devastating the economy. Their prescription: More research grants and making Sri Lanka “more conducive” to retain talent.
But this institutional narrative crumbles when confronted with empirical evidence and the actual motivations driving professional migration. The result is policy myopia; a short-sighted approach to policymaking, where decision-makers focus on immediate or short-term goals without adequately considering long-term consequences, broader systemic impacts, or the complexity of the issues involved. This approach not only misses the real dynamics at play but forecloses strategic opportunities that countries like India, China, and Ireland have successfully exploited.
What the Data Actually Shows
Recent econometric research (a working paper) analysing 25 years of Sri Lankan migration data (1999-2023) reveals a striking paradox (Figure 1). This finding aligns with several global evidence which consistently shows that the macroeconomic consequences of skilled migration are modest and highly context-dependent.

The reason? Remittance flows and diaspora contributions systematically offset productivity losses. In 2023, Sri Lankan migrants remitted nearly USD 6 billion—a figure that dwarfs calculated productivity losses from professional emigration.
The Real Migration Drivers
The institutional claim that professionals migrate because Sri Lanka is “not conducive” collapses when confronted with actual migrant motivations revealed through systematic interviews:
Educational Investment : Parents consistently cite children’s education as the primary driver. A medical officer leaving for Australia explained: “I want my daughter to access world-class universities without ultra-competitive local entrance exams. She can pursue marine biology—a field that barely exists here.” Research grants cannot compete with global educational opportunities.
Professional Development : Engineers seek exposure to projects impossible in Sri Lanka’s limited market. “I wanted to work on renewable energy infrastructure worth billions,” noted one departing civil engineer. “The largest project I could access here was maybe Rs. 300 million ($1 million).” Similarly, academics pursue PhD opportunities in fields that don’t exist in any Sri Lankan university.
Engineers consistently mention exposure to cutting-edge technology and project scales impossible in Sri Lanka. “I wanted to work on renewable energy infrastructure projects worth billions,” noted a civil engineer now in Dubai. “The largest project I could access here was maybe $50 million.”
Similarly, academics seek PhD opportunities and research environments that dwarf anything available domestically. A departing lecturer explained: “I can complete my doctorate at Cambridge in computational neuroscience—a field that doesn’t exist in any Sri Lankan university. How is that about ‘conduciveness’?”
Pragmatic Life Planning : Perhaps most revealing are the pragmatic considerations that institutional leaders prefer to ignore:
Passport Power : A significant number seek dual citizenship specifically for travel freedom. “With an Australian passport, I can travel to 185 countries visa-free. With Sri Lankan citizenship alone, it’s maybe 10,” explained a departing IT professional. Research grants don’t address this reality.
Healthcare Security : Professionals in their 40s and 50s increasingly cite access to advanced medical treatment as they age. “If I develop cancer at 65, I want access to the best oncology centres globally. That requires residency rights abroad,” noted a departing accountant.
Retirement Planning : Many professionals view migration as retirement security. “My superannuation in Sydney will be worth more than my entire EPF and career savings combined,” calculated a departing engineer.
Economic Mobility : The wealth accumulation differential remains stark. A nurse in the UK can purchase property within 3-5 years that would take 25-30 years to afford in Colombo on local salaries.
These represent rational life planning decisions, not character deficiencies or lack of patriotism.
The Methodological Problems
The officials’ analytical approach reveals concerning flaws. Comparing percentages with dollar amounts, ignoring remittance flows, and dismissing international research on brain circulation demonstrates troubling disconnection from evidence-based policymaking.
At a deeper level, their analysis is shaped by what’s called “institutional framing bias”—this means they automatically treat professional migration as a total loss for the country, without considering any possible benefits. This kind of thinking leads to what economists refer to as a “discourse-reality gap”: a mismatch between how the issue is talked about and what’s actually happening. As a result, it becomes harder to develop smart, forward-looking policies.
Many analyses of professional migration are shaped by what’s known as “institutional framing bias”—a tendency to view the departure of skilled workers as a total national loss, without considering any potential benefits such as remittances, knowledge exchange, or global networks. This narrow framing leads to what economists call a “discourse-reality gap”: a disconnect between how the issue is discussed and what is actually happening on the ground.
Moreover, institutional leaders fundamentally mischaracterise the economics by treating education and training expenses, along with infrastructure investments, as recoverable losses when professionals serve here. These represent sunk costs—expenses already incurred regardless of future migration decisions. The infrastructure remains, serving other professionals and students; the educational capacity continues operating.
The marginal economic contribution of retaining a specific professional—through taxes and direct service provision—often proves modest compared to alternative contributions through remittances and diaspora investment. A migrant doctor may contribute more to Sri Lanka’s economy annually through remittances than through domestic tax payments and rural healthcare services.
Treating sunk costs as recoverable losses represents elementary economic confusion that distorts cost-benefit analysis and leads to misguided policy responses focused on impossible ‘recovery’ rather than strategic optimization of actual economic flows.
The Research Grant Illusion and Economic Misunderstanding
The proposed solution—more research grants—reflects profound misunderstanding of migration drivers. Against 10-15x salary differentials, superior working conditions, and access to cutting-edge infrastructure, modest research grants function as token gestures rather than serious retention strategies.
This approach ignores the scale mismatch: individual professionals can earn more in annual salary increases abroad than entire institutional research budgets provide domestically. Token allocations cannot compete with structural opportunity differentials.
More fundamentally, institutional leaders misrepresent basic economic principles when calculating migration “costs.” They routinely include education and training expenses, infrastructure investments, and institutional capacity building as recoverable losses if professionals emigrate.
This represents a fundamental confusion between sunk costs and opportunity costs. Education expenses incurred training a doctor or engineer are sunk costs—already spent regardless of future migration decisions. Similarly, university infrastructure, hospital equipment, and research facilities represent fixed costs that continue serving remaining populations whether specific individuals migrate or not.
The economic reality is stark: keeping a professional domestically might generate modest tax revenue and direct service provision, but these marginal benefits often pale compared to remittance contributions and diaspora investment flows. A migrant doctor might contribute more to Sri Lanka’s economy through annual remittances than through domestic tax payments and public service provision.
Treating sunk costs as recoverable losses fundamentally misrepresents economic reality and leads to misguided policy responses that ignore actual cost-benefit calculations.
The Strategic Opportunity Cost
Contemporary migration research reveals that skilled professionals increasingly operate through circulation rather than permanent departure. Many migrate with 15–20-year strategic plans including eventual return with enhanced capabilities. Digital connectivity enables continuous engagement despite physical absence—maintaining research collaborations, mentorship networks, and institutional linkages.
This suggests migration can function as strategic human capital internationalisation rather than permanent loss. Countries like India leveraged IT professional mobility to build global networks that subsequently drove domestic technology sector growth. China’s return migration programmes converted temporary departures into permanent competitive advantages.
Sri Lanka’s institutional discourse, however, remains trapped in binary thinking: Migration as either absolute loss to be prevented or unavoidable problem to be endured. This perspective forecloses sophisticated strategies that could convert migration from net cost to net benefit.
Rather than futile prevention efforts, effective policy would be structured temporary migration pathways while maintaining diaspora engagement through digital platforms and professional networks. Need to recognise different professional categories have distinct migration patterns and impact mechanisms requiring tailored responses. Need to focus on governance and systemic improvements rather than cosmetic funding increases that fail to address fundamental structural constraints.
Most importantly, Embrace Brain Circulation: Develop return incentives and project-based collaboration mechanisms that harness internationally acquired expertise without requiring permanent repatriation.
The Reverse Migration Reality
The officials’ narrative also fails to explain documented patterns of return migration, however modest. If Sri Lanka were simply “unconducive,” why do some professionals return? The evidence suggests complex decision-making involving life-cycle considerations, family obligations, strategic career planning, and maybe some flavour of patriotic motives that defies simplistic explanations.
This reverse flow, combined with continuous diaspora engagement, indicates migration operates through more sophisticated mechanisms than institutional leaders acknowledge.
Conclusion: Fighting Yesterday’s Battle
The empirical evidence suggests Sri Lankan institutional leaders are addressing 20th-century problems with 19th-century understanding. Professional migration in the digital age operates through circulation mechanisms that can enhance rather than diminish long-term development prospects—when properly managed.
The choice is not between retaining all professionals or losing them forever. The choice is between strategic optimisation of human capital mobility or continued policy myopia that forecloses development opportunities.
Research grants and vague “conduciveness” improvements cannot compete with global opportunity differentials, legitimate family aspirations, and rational life planning decisions. Recognising this reality is the first step toward developing policy responses appropriate to contemporary migration dynamics.
Sri Lanka’s professionals will continue to migrate regardless of institutional pronouncements. Whether the country converts this reality into development advantage depends on abandoning failed prevention strategies and embracing evidence-based policy innovation.
The institutional leaders’ current approach represents not just policy failure, but strategic opportunity cost that Sri Lanka can ill afford.
(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)
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 News6 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
-
Latest News6 days agoSalt and Patidar power RCB past Mumbai Indians
-
News1 day agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract

