Features

Hoteliering

Published

3 years ago

2024/03/31

G.E.B. Milhuissen, who owned a thriving timber firm named Cetrac, in Peliyagoda had been a friend and business associate of Jeramius, a client purchasing large quantities for his projects. Geoffrey Bawa, still in the early stages of the architectural career that would make him world-famous, had been another. Together, Milhuissen and Bawa had built the Blue Lagoon Hotel, in Talahena, Negombo in 1965 – the first modern resort hotel to be built in Sri Lanka. Kept reliably filled with guests by a Scandinavian charter-tour operator, Vingresor, the Blue Lagoon had turned out to be a very profitable investment. By 1971 Milhuissen was keen on expanding.

The site Milhuissen selected for his second hotel was Palangathurai, a fishing hamlet close to Negombo. Since his old friend Jeramius had passed away, it seemed fitting to Milhuissen that the friend’s son, who was in the same business, should build the new hotel – to be called Seashells. The estimated construction period was six months, a very tight schedule in those days. Herbert set about the challenge with his usual determination, and inadvertently found himself in the tourism business.

The site was a barren field by the sea. The village of Palangathurai, comprised a handful of tiny coconut-thatched huts populated mainly by women and children whose menfolk slept by day and went out to sea at night. Fearful for their livelihoods and suspicious of the intentions of well-dressed, influential city folk, the villagers greeted Herbert and his associates with reserve and occasional hostility. It took all Herbert’s patience, humility and understanding to win them around. His people skills, honed by his years as a student politician and building contractor, were equal to the task. By the time Seashells was complete, the villagers of Palangathurai had become his friends.

The project also made him friends among the representatives of Vingresor, the Swedish charter operator, who also had an equity stake in Seashells. With tourism booming, it was not long before the Scandinavians were pressing Herbert to build a hotel of his own. If only he would build it, they promised, they fill it for him.

Herbert who loved challenges and to experiment with new ideas was not averse to the proposition. His involvement in Seashells Hotel and the long evenings spent talking shop with Milhuissen and the Scandinavians had given him considerable understanding of the business of owning and running tourist hotels. He considered the idea for a long time, and eventually bought a plot of land in the adjoining fishing village in Negombo, Ethukala.

The Blue Oceanic Beach Hotel opened in 1973 with only six rooms ready for use – a very modest beginning. The entire project was for 60 rooms – but the demand at that time was so high and the supply so little, that the tour operators were ready to take whatever accommodation that was available. So, the unfinished hotel, with the main building area separated by a cadjan wall, opened its doors with the six completed rooms.

Blue Oceanic, at the beginning, was very much a family effort. The electric cooker from the Mattumagala house was commandeered for the hotel kitchen, as the equipment ordered for the hotel had not arrived since the scheduled opening day was a long way off. Of course, the family crockery and cutlery had also to be loaned to the hotel. Josephine shopped for supplies and the family cook, Thangaraja prepared the meals. Around this tiny operation, construction of the rest of the hotel went on. By 1974 all sixty rooms had been completed as planned.

Herbert Cooray had been well and truly bitten by the hospitality bug. From now on, hotels and hoteliering would be his passion. He loved identifying spaces in picturesque areas of the country, thinking of a concept, sourcing the architect who will be able to execute it best in keeping with the environment. Of course, he could not neglect his construction business; and given his bent for personal involvement, the effort of running two enterprises in parallel was very nearly all – consuming. Still, Herbert continued to demand the highest standards of himself, his employees and his suppliers, and such was the respect in which he was held that he inevitably received it.

The first Manager of the Blue Oceanic was Lakshman Jayawardena, a veteran hotelier at the time. Just around this time, Herbert’s friend Mark Samarasinghe’s son, Ruan, who had just completed his schooling, was looking for employment. Only 19 years old, he turned out to be an excellent recruit; and was Lakshman Jayawardena’s understudy. Today, Ruan Samarasinghe is the Managing Director of Jetwing Hotels and has just completed 41 years with Jetwing.

Despite the Scandinavians’ assurances, success did not come easily at Blue Oceanic. As in the construction business, Herbert again faced entrenched competitors with experience, resources and economies of scale on their side. The largest Sri Lankan travel firms and tour operators made booking decisions on behalf of thousands of tourists and were used to dictating terms to hoteliers; many also ran their own hotels.

In those days, tourism to Sri Lanka consisted mainly of group package tours, run back to back, with the holidaymakers corralled into tight schedules for easy processing. These foreign Tour Operators and their local agents wielded great power. There were few individual travelers and last minute bookings or cancellations were rare. Opportunities to pick up business ‘dropped’ by larger operators were few. Allotments of rooms were pre-booked and charters brought in one batch of European tourists to occupy the rooms just vacated by another batch who were transported back home. The charters usually came during the European winter months which coincided well with South West monsoon and thus the tourist season established itself from November to April.

European operators sold their package using brochures that prominently featured the hotels on offer. Getting a picture of one’s hotel into these brochures was essential in order to get bookings, but Blue Oceanic was often crowded out by bigger operators. It was a closed shop. There were other problems: Negombo, relatively populous, had been passed over by the Ministry of Tourism in favour of Bentota as the centre of tourism development on the west coast of Sri Lanka. Most foreign tour operators had not even heard of Negombo.

Moreover, the officials and operators told Herbert that Negombo beaches were dirty and crowded with locals. Undeterred, Herbert kept up his search for markets beyond Scandinavia, and was finally rewarded when TUI, one of the largest German tour operators, featured Blue Oceanic in its brochure. Herbert was determined to make the underdog Negombo a flagship resort destination in Sri Lanka, and his tireless efforts have now paid dividends. Negombo today boasts wide sandybeaches, kept clean by a vigilant Municipality and tourists left to wander undisturbed bypushy “beach boys” It offered a wide variety of accomodation dining and wining option and amazing shopping opportunities.

Meanwhile, he continued to leverage his ‘people skills’ to good effect. Understanding that hospitality is essentially a personal thing, he himself would interview and approve members of the hotel’s service staff. He had his own standards for different categories of staff and sought them as often as he could. Management was kept on its toes by Herbert’s regular evening visits to Blue Oceanic. Making these evening visits necessitated a long drive after a hard day’s work in Colombo, but Herbert never shirked – he even went on weekends!

The personal touch worked, though: Blue Oceanic was soon fielding inquiries from major European tour operators. Herbert began visiting trade fairs in Germany and the UK, along with his good friends George Ondaatjie and Lucian Perera; these visits, too, generated new business. The hard work was beginning to pay off and he was enjoying it thoroughly.

From the beginning, he was extremely sensitive to the environmental and societal factors of the location and the surroundings of his hotel projects. He ensured that the building blended with the environment and did not stand out awkwardly, the natural habitat was not destroyed or disturbances were kept to a minimum, and the day to day lives of the local community was not disrupted but enhanced in whatever way possible. Herbert was vehemently against the “all inclusive concept” that became very popular at the time.

This meant that a client got a rate at a hotel that included all facilities – meals, snacks, beverages and sometimes excursions too. When tour operators asked for this, he argued that it deprives the people of the area from benefiting from tourism. As the clients have no reason to leave the hotel, the little cafes and bars that add to the tourist experience will naturally find it hard to survive. Continuing this policy, most Jetwing hotels now sell on Bed and Breakfast giving the client the freedom and the flexibility to experience other local cuisine.

Hoteliering might have been the whole of Herbert Cooray’s involvement with tourism, had Dieter Feld, a German tour operator not visited the Blue Oceanic one day in the early 1980s to inspect the hotel and make a booking for his clients. The man simply fell in love with Negombo; he wanted to live there. The problem was that his business was handled by a company in Colombo, and commuting daily from Negombo was out of the question. Unwilling to give up his dream, he set about persuading Herbert to start a travel agency of his own. He said once he did so, he could have the entire business of handling his clients. The agency would undertake ‘ground arrangements’ – transportation, guides, etc. – for the German’s clients.

Herbert was dubious and reluctant. He knew nothing about the travel trade; hotels were what he loved. Conceptualising and creating them excited him. Seeing them operating efficiently, providing employment to many youth and giving a great service satisfied him immensely. The German suggested a compromise: he would set up the company and help run it too, so long as Herbert would provide the investment.

Thus began Jet Travels, a Destination Management Company founded in 1981, its name a direct translation of the name of the German tour operator’s firm Jet Reisen. Its four employees were accommodated in a building in front of Blue Oceanic Hotel. A bus was purchased for tours and airport transfers; its first driver was David Appuhamy, a lorry driver who had worked for Herbert for many years, ferrying building materials for his construction projects.

A couple of years later, G.E.B. Milhuissen, contemplating retirement, began disposing of his businesses. Herbert bought the Seashells Hotel in Negombo, a hotel he had built in record time. Vingresor, happy with the change of management, assisted the enterprise by moving their ground-handling business from their earlier agency to Jet Travels. Later, a larger German tour operator, ITS bought Jet Reisen and was willing to transfer their business also to Jet Travels provided the name and logo was changed. To Herbert, who was never one for research and fanfare, there was a simple solution.

Quite simply, Jet Travels became Jetwing Travels, by coining together the names of the two tour operators the company handled – German (Jet) and Scandinavian (Ving, with a slight twist became wing!). A new chapter in Herbert Cooray’s life and the history of Sri Lankan tourism had begun.

– – – – –

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:G.E.B. Milhuissen Negombo Thangaraja

Up Next

The story of rice and some controversial predictions from the developed world

Don't Miss

THE SPORT OF KINGS

Click to comment

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

7 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

7 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

7 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.