Features
Formulating a National Policy on disability

Disability studies in the universities
(Excerpted from Memories that linger – my journey in the world of disability by Padmani Mendis)
Prof. Chandra Gunawardene was the Dean of the Faculty of Education at the Open University of Sri Lanka, OUSL, at the turn of the century. I was recommended to her by her friend Prof. Swarna Wijetunge who had been a Professor of Education at the University of Colombo. Prof. Wijetunge was a member of the National Education Commission. She had always been sensitive to the poor quality of education available to disabled children. Prof. Gunawardene was keen to take action to uplift this through improvement in teacher education.
So she obtained the approval of the OUSL in 2004 to set up within the Open University a Department of Special Needs Education. She asked for my help to do this and had me recruited to the Faculty as a Senior Consultant. I set about getting the preliminary arrangements done. Meanwhile she also recruited to the Department of Special Needs Education two senior lecturers. She arranged for these two to proceed directly to the University of Lahore and return with their Doctoral Degrees to start academic activity in the Department. One of the first such activities was a Bachelor of Education Honours in Special Needs.
University of Colombo
The University of Colombo, since 2009 was running an “Ability Centre for Students with Disabilities”. It was helping students in a small way. Ashoka Weerawardena was running this centre.
Aloka Weerasekera had in 2012 obtained a degree from the Faculty. Aloka, as a student, had helped the Faculty and his disabled colleagues within it, to deal with the some of the problems they faced. And even after he graduated he continued to help Ashoka at the Ability Centre.
A new dean, Prof. Athula Ranasinghe, was appointed to the Faculty of Arts in 2011. He proposed that it was time that the Faculty demonstrated greater academic leadership in disability. Aloka and I were brought in to join the staff of the Department of Sociology on a planning committee to find a strategy for putting into practice this academic support for disability.
The end result of the planning committee’s deliberations was the setting up in 2014 of the Centre for Disability Research, Education and Practice popularly called CEDREP.
In the same year the US Embassy came in with a grant to finance improvements to the Ability Centre for the benefit of students. This Centre was upgraded and had its role and name changed to the “Support Centre for Students with Disabilities”. I was a frequent visitor to assist Ashoka with what I could. CEDREP called on me for advice in the early years when they needed it.
Disabled People to the Forefront
A significant outcome of CBR at the grass roots was the setting up of disability self-help groups. Fridsro helped in this in the government-supported CBR areas throughout the island. Unfortunately, government workers later made these into District Disability Organisations over which they could and did have influence. As was to be expected, the autonomy within the small self-groups was gone. Many disabled people who had been empowered through their self-help group were disillusioned and turned away.
Others, such as Nishar Sharif, persist even today, raising the issue of their rights and their inclusion within the district and province. Navajeevana encouraged the formation of self-help groups in the CBR areas they supported. These also developed into Divisional Disability Organisations. I have met some on my visits to the south. Although they are sustained with some financial support from Christoffel Blinden Mission, CBM, they maintain their autonomy and empowerment and participate in area development planning and activities.
In Sri Lanka there has not even until now been any kind of Disability Movement. In Colombo personable individuals set up organisations to publicise the needs of particular disability groups. Occasionally they would obtain sponsorship to implement interventions. Some have been led by disabled people themselves and others have not. There was debate about these at the time. Within the world of disability, it was felt that the organisation had to be managed by disabled people themselves to be recognised as a Disabled Peoples’ Organization (DPO). If it was managed by a non-disabled person or people, then it was thought of as an NGO.
S. L. Hettiarachchi
So the Sri Lanka Council for the Blind (SLCB) which was actually single-handedly run by S. L. Hettiarachchi, himself with visual impairment and totally unable to see, was considered to be an NGO. Its president, although only in a nominal role, was not disabled. Soon after I started working with the School of Social Work, I met Mr. Hettiarachchi. I used to meet him often thereafter for a chat in his office. We developed a close life-long friendship until he passed away in 2015.
With Mr. Hettiarachchi in the driving seat, the SLCB carried out many activities for young people – particularly, courses which imparted skills and knowledge scarce elsewhere such as in Mobility and Orientation and Information Technology. On a Saturday morning I would often drop in for a chat with the young people there.
What impressed me most was the Library the SLCB developed with an extensive collection of both written and audio publications made easily accessible to the many who availed of its resources. Mr. Hettiarachchi then extended the library to the thirteen Special Schools for the Blind located throughout the island and were registered with the Ministry of Education. He later sought and obtained support for this from Sight Savers International, SSI.
Three years later SSI requested me to evaluate the impact of their support to benefit children. One of the most interesting findings regarding project’s impact was the children’s increased love of reading. Many had become avid readers. Many had taken to reading a new book every two to three days. Many had shown improvement in language development, reading and writing skills, grammar, vocabulary and verbalisation. It strengthened my belief that it was the SLCB, as organisations were at the time, that had the greatest impact on disabled people.
Premadasa Dissanayake and Cyril Siriwardene
Another disabled person with whom I shared both a working relationship and friendship was Premadasa Dissanayake. Premadasa hailed from a village in Badulla in the Uva province. He came to Colombo as a wheel-chair user to seek employment. This he got at the Gangarama Temple in Colombo, first learning the skill of watch repair and then as a teacher of other young people both those who had disabilities and others who had not, to acquire the same skill.
He never forgot his roots and later, when he was able to implement field programmes, they were located around the village he came from. He impressed others with his honesty, diligence and hard work.
Premadasa was the core of the, Sri Lanka Foundation for Rehabilitation of the Disabled (SLFRD), which he established with support. Within this, he had soon set up a workshop to produce a range of appliances required by people with mobility impairments – wheelchairs, tricycles, crutches and so on. This workshop called Rehab Lanka bid for and obtained tenders for these and was a regular supplier to both the Ministry in Colombo and to Departments of Social Services in the provinces.
With funding from the Swedish Organisation of the Handicapped International Aid Foundation, he moved into community-based work. I enjoyed very much walking the villages in Badulla with his staff.
Such was the recognition Premadasa had that one of Sri Lanka’s leading garment manufacturers negotiated an agreement between Rehab Lanka and Marks and Spencer popularly known as M & S, the well-known chain of retail stores in the UK. Premadasa trained workers of the garment factory to produce the items they made for M & S. Training was done according to the technical and quality requirements as stated in the agreement between M & S and Rehab Lanka.
Working with Premadasa at Rehab Lanka was Cyril Siriwardene. Cyril had started using a wheelchair since he had met with a road traffic accident while serving in the Air Force. With his assertive but pleasant personality and skilled use of the English Language Cyril was soon recognised as a leader and disability spokesperson both by disabled people and by others.
It was Cyril, Premadasa and Mr. Hettiarachchi that established a dialogue with the Ministry of Social Welfare. This was the time that Viji Jegarasasingham (Mrs. J) had come to the Ministry as an Additional Secretary. She was open to it.
Ministry of Social Welfare
The Ministry of Social Welfare and disability groups soon had a regular conversation. An outcome of this was that in 1996 the first Disability Law was passed. This law was concerned mostly with the setting up of a National Council for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD), and with strengthening the provision of disability services within government. The NCPD was of course to be chaired by the Minister of Social Welfare.
As a positive step, the law ensured a majority participation of disabled people and their representatives in the NCPD, recognising their right to decision making in matters that affected them.
Recognising this in law but not, unfortunately, in practice. It is still the Ministry of Social Welfare that makes all decisions in the field of disability. Even in the making of a new law, a seemingly continuous process started in the year 2004 and is as yet incomplete.
I was not aware of the preparation or enactment of that law in 1996. Maybe I was too concerned with international work at that time. I served however on two consecutive National Councils, the first of which was set up as soon as the law came into effect in 1996.
My experience was that we did not really do anything to bring about changes in the lives of disabled persons and their families. Much of the monthly meetings dealt with acceding to requests by disability organisations and disabled people for financial assistance for a range of purposes from renovating buildings to organising sports events to staging concerts by disabled people.
Disability work was still very much based on charity. The disability representation at large on the National Council however appeared to be satisfied sitting with the minister every month and telling him of their woes. A vivid recollection I have of the first council is the minister, while sitting at the head of the long table, tucking in with satisfaction into a bowl of fruit salad. I must also say that to me he seemed not even to listen to what was being said.
- Prof. Chandra Gunawardene
- Prof. Athula Ranasinghe
National Policy on Disability
At the beginning of this decade there was some visible activity in the Ministry of Social Welfare as it concerned the world of disability. A newly introduced government regulation called on each ministry to develop national policies in areas it was mandated for. For our ministry this included disability.
Consulting the few disabled people she interacted with at the time, Mrs. J had appointed a renowned disabled person to make a draft national policy on disability or NPD. Repeated reviews and revisions did not result in a satisfactory document. This was apparently leading to some frustration all round. Mr. Hettiarachchi talked with me about it, and I wrote for him a brief note on how a national policy may be developed. It had to be a participatory and consultative process.
Together with his colleagues he took this to Mrs. J and they suggested she talk with me about it. The result was that she asked me whether I could do this. I said of course, but with two conditions. One was that the ministry appoints a committee to make the task participatory, and the second – you will not believe it – that she appoints me as Chairperson and let me suggest to her the 12 members that should constitute the committee. I knew my Sri Lanka and she obviously knew me.
The Minister was informed, letters of appointment were received and very soon the committee and our support staff were seated round a table at the ministry – not the one I referred to earlier and there was no bowl of fruit salad.
Our committee represented people with the most prevalent disabilities through their organisations, and those sectors that had to be most involved with disability and disabled people. We started our work with reports from them, each related to the area of their particular concern. Followed by discussion about the situations presented and very preliminary policy suggestions.
In spite of the wide representation on our committee one large gap was evident. No one really knew the situation of disabled people and their families in our country. It was my task to inform Mrs. J that we had to determine this through a socio-economic survey before we could go ahead with policy formulation. All she said was, “How much will you need?” It was then my responsibility to bring to her quotations from three sources known for their experience in conducting such tasks.
She selected one and said she would find the money required. This was Rs. 750,000 for an island-wide sample survey. Nielson Sri Lanka completed the report in three months. Together with the Rs. 400 each member was paid by the ministry as transport cost per meeting, the preparation of the NPD cost just over Rs. 900,000. Our committee took joy comparing this to what the formulation of a draft National Employment Policy cost at about the same time – Rs. 13 million. That cost was met by a foreign donor and the policy was never approved.
During the many meetings that followed, we interviewed dozens of persons, both as individuals and as groups. We had Mrs. J arrange for us interviews with secretaries of ministries, heads of institutions and UN and other agencies, DPOs and NGOs with whom we consulted on the content and formulation of the policy. In this way we benefited from the experience and insight of a countless number of people.
When we presented the National Policy on Disability that our committee had produced to the minister who was at the time Ravindra Samaraweera, he asked me why we had taken four months when he had asked for it in three. But he was pleased and soon had it approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Those were Sri Lanka’s good times. Now, but precious memories.
Disability Rights Bill (DRB)
The success achieved by her Ministry with the publication of the National Policy appeared to motivate Mrs. J to take this process further. So within a few months she had appointed another committee to ensure legal validity for the Policy. This time I was appointed Chairperson with no notice of it. The four other members of the committee she selected were all attorneys. One also had experienced disability, having had visual impairment from a very young age. He had his wife read out to him at home the documents that the committee had written or typed as text.
Our mandate was to see if the existing law of 1996 was adequate to implement the NPD. And if it was not, to draft a new Disability Rights Bill. Well, that was how the task was stated, but there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that a new Bill was essential. A new law was needed to ensure the fulfilment of the rights of disabled people.
Preparation for drafting this document required a completely different process. As members, we gathered together all published laws in Sri Lanka that had any relevance to our task. We also gathered together laws that had been made by other countries. Then we sat down to reference these and gather precedent information that we could be used for our draft bill. We also sought the help of many individuals to advise us on sections of the draft.
On completing a preliminary draft, we had the ministry translate it for us into Sinhala and Tamil and opened these to the general public. This preliminary draft was amended with the feedback received. The first draft Disability Rights Bill (2006) was submitted to cabinet for approval as was required at the time. Mrs. J was happy to inform us when approval was received within two weeks.
She asked us whether the committee would continue to help the ministry get the draft through the Legal Draftsman’s Department, which we did with negotiations and simple compromise. We continued to help the Ministry with the next step, which was the Attorney General’s Department.
Here we met our first obstacle. This was the attorney rather junior at the time, tasked with the review and approval of it. We never got it past her. I see that attorney is still in the department, now almost at the top. Well, sad to say, that Bill is still a draft.
Later in 2009, the whole process changed completely. This was when a new Minister came in. He had the bill redrafted by an individual whose name is unknown to this date. Politicisation was in force. Numerous revisions and drafts have been made since then, and the process is even now ongoing. My personal view is that the ministry fears that with a new bill, it will lose control over disabled people and over disability. So, no new Disability Rights Law.
Sad, sad Sri Lanka. Sad for the situation of our disabled people whose rights are yet to be recognised in Law.
Features
How many more must die before Sri Lanka fixes its killer roads?

On the morning of May 11, 2025, the quiet hills of Ramboda were pierced by the wails of sirens and the cries of survivors. A Sri Lanka Transport Board (SLTB) bus, en route from Kataragama to Kurunegala via Nuwara Eliya, veered off the winding road and plunged down a deep precipice in the Garandiella area. At least 23 people lost their lives and more than 35 were injured—some critically.
The nation mourned. But this wasn’t merely an isolated accident. It was a brutal reminder of Sri Lanka’s long-standing and worsening road safety crisis––one where the poor pay the highest price, and systemic neglect continues to endanger thousands every day.
A national epidemic
According to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s 2023 Road Safety Report, buses and other passenger vehicles are involved in 60% of fatalities while motorcycles account for 35% of reported accidents. Though three-wheelers are often criticised in the media, they contribute to only 12% of all accidents. The focus, however, remains disproportionately on smaller vehicles—ignoring the real danger posed by larger, state-run and private buses.
The Ramboda incident reflects what transport experts and road safety advocates have long warned about: that Sri Lanka’s road accident problem is not primarily about vehicle type, but about systemic failure. And the victims—more often than not—are those who rely on public transport because they have no other choice.
One of the biggest contributors to the frequency and severity of road accidents is Sri Lanka’s crumbling infrastructure. A 2023 report by the Sri Lanka Road Development Authority (SLRDA) noted that nearly 40% of the country’s road network is in poor or very poor condition. In rural and hilly areas, this figure is likely higher. Potholes, broken shoulders, eroded markings, and inadequate lighting are all too common. In mountainous terrain like Ramboda, these conditions can be fatal.
Even worse, since 2015, road development has effectively stagnated. Although the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration was often criticised for its ambitious infrastructure drive, it left behind a network of wide, well-lit highways and urban improvements. The subsequent administrations not only failed to continue this momentum, but actively reversed course in some instances—most notably, with the cancellation of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project in Colombo, which had been poised to modernise urban mobility and reduce congestion.
Instead of scaling up, Sri Lanka scaled down. Maintenance budgets were slashed, long-term projects shelved, and development planning took a back seat to short-term political calculations. Roads deteriorated, traffic congestion worsened, and safety standards eroded.
Dangerous drivers
Infrastructure is only part of the story. Human behaviour plays a significant role too—and Sri Lanka’s roads often mirror the lawlessness that prevails off them.
A 2022 survey by the Sri Lanka Road Safety Council revealed alarming patterns in driver behaviour: 45% of accidents involved drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and 40% were attributed to speeding. These figures reflect not just recklessness, but a dangerous culture of impunity.
The legal blood alcohol limit for drivers in Sri Lanka is 0.08%, but enforcement remains lax, particularly in rural areas and during off-peak hours. There is no consistent system of random breath testing, and police checkpoints are often limited to high-profile holidays or urban areas.
The same lack of enforcement applies to speeding, tailgating, overtaking on blind corners, and ignoring traffic signals. While the law technically provides for penalties, in practice, enforcement is selective at best. Even SLTB bus drivers—tasked with transporting hundreds daily—are known for aggressive and erratic driving. The Ramboda bus is reported to have been speeding on a dangerously narrow bend, a pattern that has become disturbingly common.
Public buses, both state-run and private, are some of the most dangerous vehicles on the road today—not just due to their size, but because of operational cultures that prioritise speed over safety. Competition for passengers, poor driver training, minimal vehicle maintenance, and weak regulatory oversight have created a deadly combination.
Do they not deserve better?
Most people who travel in SLTB buses are from lower-income backgrounds. They rely on public transportation not by choice, but by necessity. A factory worker in Nuwara Eliya, a schoolteacher in Bandarawela, or a daily wage earner commuting between towns—all are bound to a public transport system that is increasingly unreliable and unsafe.
Sri Lanka’s social contract has failed its most vulnerable. The poor are expected to brave substandard buses on crumbling roads, driven by underpaid and undertrained drivers, often in hazardous weather and terrain. In many rural areas, buses are lifelines. When one crashes, it is not merely a tragedy—it’s a profound injustice.
Had the LRT system gone forward, had road maintenance been prioritised, had reckless drivers been reined in through strict enforcement, how many lives could have been saved?
Experts agree that the solution lies in a combination of infrastructure investment, driver education, and law enforcement reform. The Sri Lanka Road Safety Council has repeatedly called for mandatory road safety training, particularly for commercial drivers. Such training should cover not just traffic laws, but also defensive driving, fatigue management, and the dangers of DUI.
Enforcement, too, needs a dramatic overhaul. License suspensions, large fines, and jail time for repeat offenders must become the norm—not the exception. A centralised traffic violation database could prevent habitual offenders from slipping through the cracks.
And critically, investment in infrastructure must resume—not in flashy mega-projects for political gain, but in safe, functional, and equitable roads and transit systems. The re-introduction of the LRT or similar mass transit projects should be seriously reconsidered, especially in urban centers where congestion is growing and road space is limited.
The misunderstood three-wheeler
On the other hand, while three-wheelers are frequently vilified in public discourse and media narratives for reckless driving, the data tells a different story. According to the Central Bank’s 2023 Road Safety Report, they account for just 12% of all road accidents—a fraction compared to the 60% involving buses and other passenger vehicles, and the 35% attributed to motorcycles. Yet, disproportionate attention continues to be directed at three-wheelers, conveniently shifting focus away from the far greater risks posed by large, state-run and private buses.
What often goes unacknowledged is the essential role three-wheelers play in Sri Lanka’s transport ecosystem, particularly in remote and rural areas where reliable public transport is virtually nonexistent. For residents of small towns and isolated villages in the hill country, three-wheelers are not a luxury—they are a necessity. Affordable, nimble, and capable of navigating narrow, winding roads where buses cannot operate, these vehicles have become the primary mode of short-distance travel for countless Sri Lankans.
Even more importantly, in the aftermath of road accidents—especially in remote regions like Ramboda—it is often the three-wheeler drivers who are the first to respond. When tragedy strikes, they ferry the injured to hospitals, assist with rescue efforts, and offer immediate aid long before official emergency services arrive. This community-centered, grassroots role is rarely acknowledged in national conversations about road safety, yet it remains a vital, life-saving contribution.
Rather than treating three-wheelers as a problem to be blamed, the government should recognise their indispensable value and work towards integrating them more effectively and safely into the national transport framework. Regularising the sector through measures such as mandatory driver training programmes, periodic vehicle safety checks, and the enforcement of standardised operating licenses could improve safety without displacing an essential service. Additionally, designating official three-wheeler stands, particularly in high-risk or high-traffic areas, and incentivising drivers who maintain clean safety records would help create a safer, more accountable environment for both passengers and pedestrians.
Moving beyond the blame game
It is time for us to move beyond the tired narrative that blames specific vehicles—motorcycles, three-wheelers, or buses—for the carnage on Sri Lanka’s roads. The problem is not the mode of transport. It is the system that surrounds it.
When buses are poorly maintained, roads are not repaired, drivers are not trained, and laws are not enforced, tragedy becomes inevitable. Blaming a single vehicle type does nothing to address these root causes.
The real question is: Do we have the political will to fix this? Or will Sri Lanka continue to count the dead—accident after accident—while doing little more than issuing condolences?
The Ramboda accident was not the first. It won’t be the last. But it should be the turning point.Let this be the moment we stop pointing fingers—and start fixing the road.
(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law with over a decade of experience specializing in civil law, a former Board Member of the Office of Missing Persons, and a former Legal Director of the Central Cultural Fund. He holds an LLM in International Business Law and resides in Battaramulla, where he experiences the daily challenges of commuting to Hulftsdorp, providing him with a unique perspective on Sri Lanka’s road safety issues.)
By Sampath Perera
Features
J’accuse – Need for streamlined investigation of corruption in former President’s office

Though the government is moving more slowly on corruption than I would have liked, it is moving, which is more than can be said for its predecessors. I remember how sad I was when Yahapalanaya did very little, except for political advantage, about the corruption it had highlighted in the election campaign in which I had so foolishly joined; but the reason became clear with the bond scam, when the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration rose to heights of corruption that surpassed, in convoluted ingenuity, anything the Mahinda Rajapaksa government could have achieved. Thus far the present government is clean, and that will make its task much easier.
I hope then that the slow but steady progress of this government in investigation will bear fruit. But at the same time, I think it would also be good if it looked at instances when corruption was avoided. The horrors of the visa scam, in which the Controller General of Immigration seems to have connived with his political masters, suggest how important it is to also praise those civil servants who resist pressures.
With regard to the visa scam, I had thought Tiran Alles largely responsible, but perhaps I have done the man an injustice – if that were conceivable – and the fountainhead of the matter was the President. I now think this the more likely, having heard about a Civil Servant who did stand up against the political pressures brought upon him. If this government were to look into the matter, and recognise his integrity and courage, perhaps that would prompt the former Controller General of Immigration and Emigration too to come clean and turn Crown Witness, having accepted a compounded penalty for anything he might have done wrong.
It can be difficult to resist pressure. That must be understood though it is no reason to excuse such conduct. But it is therefore more essential to praise the virtuous, such as the former Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Dr Palitha Mahipala. I had heard of him earlier, and I am sorry he was removed, though I have also heard good things about his successor, so there is no reason to bring him back. But perhaps he could be entrusted with greater responsibilities, and awarded some sort of honour in encouragement of those with courage.
One of the notable things Dr Mahipala did was to resist pressure brought upon him to award a contract to Francis Maude, a British crony of the President. This was to design a supply chain management for pharmaceuticals. A system for this was already being designed by the Asian Development Bank, but when told about this the authorities had nevertheless insisted.
The then Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for having asked the Ministry of Health to prepare a stunningly expensive MoU that was quite unnecessary.
But his claim was that he had been introduced to the Britisher by a top aide of the President. This rings true for it was the President who first wished Maude upon the country. It was after all Ranil Wickremesinghe who, a year after he became President, announced that, to boost state revenue, Maude had been invited ‘to visit Sri Lanka and share his insights on sectoral reform’.
When he became a Minister under David Cameron, Maude’s responsibilities included ‘public service efficiency and transparency’. There seems to have been nothing about revenue generation, though the President’s statement claimed that ‘Sri Lanka must explore new avenues for increasing income tax revenues…He expressed concern over not only the neglect of public revenue but also the unrestricted spending of public funds on non-beneficial activities’.
He ‘called for an extensive media campaign to educate the public’ but this did not happen, doubtless because transparency went by the board, in his antics, including the demand, whoever prompted it, that Maude be to do something already done. Surely, this comes under the heading of unrestricted spending of public funds on non-beneficial activities, and it is difficult to believe that top government officials connived at promoting this while Ranil would have expressed concern had he known what they were up to.
Nothing further is recorded of Ranil’s original trumpeting of Maude’s virtues, and far from being there to provide advice on the basis of his experience in government, he seems to have been trawling for business for the firm he had set up on leaving politics, for it was with that private agency that the MoU was urged.
Thankfully, Dr Mahipala resisted pressure, and that plot came to nothing. But it should not be forgotten, and the government would do well to question those responsible for what happened, after speaking to Dr Mahipala and looking at the file.
Indeed, given the amount of corruption that can be traced to the President’s Office, it would make sense for the government to institute a Commission of Inquiry to look into what happened in that period of intensive corruption. It should be subject to judicial appeal, but I have no doubt that incisive questioning of those who ran that place would lead to enough information to institute prosecutions, and financial recompense for the abuses that occurred.
by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Features
Trump’s Press Secretary; no attention to the health crisis

In her Cry on 25 April, Cassandra wrote this in her section on Trump’s moves to Make America Great Again – MAGA. “The latest was heard on BBC news on Wednesday 16. A fluff of a blonde White House press secretary by name of Karoline Leavitt announces that President Trump expects Harvard University to apologise to him for the continuing tolerance of anti-Semitism by the university. And that little blonde fluff adds ‘And they should.’ Didn’t Cass guffaw, but bitterly. That’s Trump vs Harvard.”
Karoline Leavitt
This young blonde has been making waves ever since, so much so that night shows in the US have spoken of her, and not well. Jimmy Kimmel arranged a dialogue between Karoline and Mark Carney, PM of Canada, when he recently visited the US. She insulted him by saying he did not know what democracy was and that Canada would benefit by becoming the 51st of the US. Carney vowed Canada was not for sale and never would be. The interview which was described in a video which I watched got hotter, Carney became cooler and Karoline rattled until she shot up and left the room. The usually noisy crowd that collects to listen to Kimmel roared – disdain.
Cass had to ferret more about her, so she went to the Internet. Born in 1997, Karoline Leavitt studied politics and communication at Saint Anselm College, which she entered on a games scholarship. She interned in the White House as an apprentice press secretary and was named a press secretary in Trump‘s first term. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she became a communications director for New York. She was the Republican candidate in the US House of Reps election for New Hampshire in 2022 but lost. She was much in Trump’s campaign against Biden’s winning and then served as a spokeswoman for MAGA Inc. In November 2024, Trump named her his White House Press Secretary, the youngest to hold this post in US history. All this seems to have gone to her blonde head!
Mosquitoes making life hell in Colombo
These pests are breeding like mad in and around Colombo and other parts of the country too. We can be tolerant of nature and its creatures, but the mosquito now is deadly. She passes on the dreaded diseases of chikungunya and dengue; the former debilitating for months after the grueling ache in bones is abated as the infection recedes. Dengue can be fatal if one’s platelet count goes below the red line.
The crux of the near pandemic of these two diseases is that infection and prevalence of the two could be greatly reduced by control of the carrier of the infection – The Mosquito. And on whom rests the responsibility of controlling the breeding of mosquitoes? On You and Me. But both of these entities are often careless, and totally non-caring about keeping their premises clean and of course eliminating all breeding spots for flying pests. Does the responsibility end there? Not upon your life! The buck moves on and lands on the public health inspectors, the garbage removers, the fumigators. Their boss who sees to them working properly is the Medical Officer of Health. And he is part of the Colombo Municipal Council that has the responsibility of looking to the health of people within the MC.
The spread of the two diseases mentioned is proof that the above persons and establishments are NOT doing the work they should be doing.
It is a proven fact that just before a change in personnel in the country, or a MC or a Pradeshiya Sabha, with a general election or local government election in the near future, most work stops in government offices or in local government establishments as the case may be. Workers get the disease of ennui; do minimum work until new bosses take over.
This definitely has happened in Colombo. Cass lives in Colombo 3. Quite frequent fumigation stopped some time ago. About two weeks ago she heard the process and smelled the fumes. Then nothing and mosquitoes breeding with the infrequent rain and no repellents or cleaning of premises. She phoned the MOH’s office on Thursday last week. Was promised fumigation. Nothing.
We are in a serious situation but no Municipal Council action. Politics is to blame here too. The SJB is trying to grab control of the Colombo MC and people are falling prey to the two diseases. All politicians shout it’s all for the people they enter politics, etc. The NPP has definitely shown concern for the public and have at least to a large extent eliminated corruption in public life. They have a woman candidate for Mayor who sure seems to be able to do a very good job. Her concern seems to be the people. But no. A power struggle goes on and its root cause: selfishness and non-caring of the good of the people. And for more than a week, the personnel from the MOH are looking on as more people suffer due to dirty surroundings.
Garbage is collected from her area on Tuesdays and Saturdays with paper, etc., on Thursdays. Tuesday 13 was a holiday but garbage was put out for collection. Not done. At noon, she phoned a supervisor of the cleaning company concerned only to ask whether the workers had a day off. Garbage was removed almost immediately. That is concern, efficiency and serving the public.
As Cass said, Colombo is in near crisis with two mosquito borne diseases mowing down people drastically. And nothing is being done by the officers who are given the responsibility of seeing to the cleanliness of the city and its suburbs.
-
Features6 days ago
SAITM Graduates Overcome Adversity, Excel Despite Challenges
-
Opinion6 days ago
Drs. Navaratnam’s consultation fee three rupees NOT Rs. 300
-
News6 days ago
Destined to be pope:Brother says Leo XIV always wanted to be a priest
-
Sports6 days ago
ASBC Asian U22 and Youth Boxing Championships from Monday
-
Features5 days ago
Championing Geckos, Conservation, and Cross-Disciplinary Research in Sri Lanka
-
Business6 days ago
Dilmah – HSBC future writers festival attracts 150+ entries
-
Midweek Review3 days ago
Bronze statue for P’karan, NPP defeat in the North and 16th anniversary of triumph over terrorism
-
Business6 days ago
Bloom Hills Holdings wins Gold for Edexcel and Cambridge Education