Features

How smart is it to litigate to be proven right?

Published

4 years ago

2022/02/28

By Dhara Wijayatilake¹

A disputant goes into court against another because he thinks he is right and the other is wrong and wants a court pronouncement to cement his position. After many years, huge expense, many consultations with Lawyers, many trips to the court house, postponed hearings, and even perhaps much emotional turmoil, a Judge delivers a judgment. One party is proven right and the other wrong, or the case may even be decided on a procedural matter with no determination as to who is right and who is wrong. Even the winner, if there is one is a loser. Today, there are options to litigation such as Mediation where the focus is not on being right, but on what each disputant needs and on reaching a settlement to satisfy those needs. It’s a process that is fast and cost effective. So, it’s a call to be smart – spend time and money to be right (litigation – where you may even end up being wrong) or spend much less time and much less money to satisfy needs (Mediation).

Delays in courts have reached ridiculous levels. Many Ministers of Justice over many years have attempted to reduce delays by “reforming” laws. The outcomes have not made a significant difference and the challenge to find solutions continue. One of the most comprehensive studies on Laws Delays in Sri Lanka was perhaps the one done by the “Laws Delays and Legal Culture Committee” headed by Justice R. S. Wanasundera, Judge of the Supreme Court. In its Report of October 1985 the Committee identified several causes for delays and submitted proposals to remedy them. The Report included a poignant observation that remains valid even today, ie. that in an adversarial system of justice such as ours, delays destroy justice, deterrence is lost, costs are increased, court resources are wasted and severe emotional hardship is inflicted upon litigants. In combination, these factors undermine the efficacy of the whole legal system, sapping its strength, vitality and even its integrity, and making the majority of litigants lose confidence. This observation remains valid even today. While substantive and procedural laws can be reformed in an attempt to eliminate delaying features, the legal culture which is a significant contributor can only be reformed through good practices that then constitute our legal culture. Here’s where we fail.

Laws delays is not a phenomenon that’s peculiar to Sri Lanka. It’s a problem confronting many jurisdictions across the globe. It’s this disillusionment with litigation which is rooted in the adversarial system, that has motivated a diversion to alternative methods of resolving disputes. The most popular Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods are Arbitration, Mediation and Negotiation. This article discusses Mediation which is accepted globally as an alternative that offers benefits that have proved to be meaningful.

Features of Mediation

There are many models of Mediation including Facilitative and Evaluative which are the most popular. In the 1960s, Facilitative Mediation flourished because of its marked difference in approach to conflict resolution and the resulting successes. Evaluative mediation is used by Mediators who are subject experts and offers an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the legal positions of the disputants leading to informed decision making by the disputants. This method is often used by judges in jurisdictions that provide for a settlement conference. This article discusses Facilitative Mediation which offers a process that’s unique in its features and is in complete contrast to litigation or Arbitration. Mediation evokes excitement because it’s speedy and cost effective, These virtues alone make a good case for opting for Mediation. There are others.

=It provides for party autonomy. Parties decide on the Mediators, the venue, the language of the mediation, the rules, and importantly, controls the outcome. No outside party sits in judgment over the dispute or how it should be settled.

=It’s informal but inspires trust. Parties sit with the Mediator and the other parties in an informal setting and engage in the process directly. They are provided ample space to speak of their concerns and participate fully while maintaining their dignity. Although there are no formalities as in a court of law, parties are required to conduct themselves in a disciplined manner. Parties are guided to move away from positions and focus on interests and needs instead.

=The procedural rules are simple and user friendly and are designed only to ensure responsible conduct. The process is not bogged down with procedural imperatives. There’s never a risk as prevails in litigation, that some flaw in complying with a procedural rule will get primacy over the core issues in the dispute, in determining the fate of the parties.

=It’s voluntary. The disputants use the option of mediation by choice and are free to walk out of a mediation at any time and are not obligated at any stage to stay in the process. This is so, even if reference to mediation is mandatory by law, based on the category of dispute and its monetary value. What is mandatory is to attempt a mediated settlement prior to proceeding to file action in a court of law.

= There’s no judgment of right vs wrong. It’s a process that seeks to find common ground to agree on a settlement that addresses the interests of both parties, and is not a process that evaluates legal entitlements although those can also be taken into account by parties when agreeing to a settlement.

=It adopts a completely non adversarial approach and therefore affords the opportunity for parties to repair fractured feelings, thus enabling an ongoing relationship.

=It’s confidential. This is an important feature of Mediation. Parties are required to sign agreement to maintain confidentiality with regard to all matters discussed. Parties agree not to divulge the substance of discussions at any other dispute resolution forum.

= The process is skillfully facilitated by a third party neutral, the Mediator. The Mediator controls the process using special skills and techniques and facilitates the disputants to reach an outcome that’s acceptable to them. The Mediator ensures that ground rules are followed to control emotions and avoid aggression during the sessions.

Neutrality of the Mediator is an important feature. The Mediator must at all times maintain independence and neutrality. If at any time, a disputant feels that this principle is breached, a mediation can be terminated.

Sri Lanka’s Mediation statutes

Mediation was first institutionalized with the enactment of the Mediation Boards Act, No. 72 of 1988 which incorporated all of the key features of Mediation. Mediation Boards now function in every Divisional Secretary’s area across the country. These have come to be known as “community Mediation Boards.” Subsequently, the Mediation (Special Categories of Disputes) Act, No. 21 of 2003 was enacted²to provide for more specialized mediation services for certain identified categories of disputes.

The 1988 Act stipulates that certain categories of disputes must be mandatorily referred to Mediation, and also that certain disputes cannot be entertained by Community Mediation Boards.

Where reference to Mediation is mandatory, no action in respect of such a dispute can be instituted in or be entertained by a court of law unless Mediation has been unsuccessful and a certificate of non settlement from the Mediation Board is produced.

Disputes that must mandatorily be referred to Mediation are-

a) where the value of the dispute is below the monetary threshold set out in the Act, unless it’s one which gives rise to a cause of action set out in the Third Schedule to the Act.

In 1988 the monetary threshold was stipulated as Rs. 25,000/=. This has been amended from time to time and the current threshold introduced in 2016 is Rs, 500,000/=¹.

The Third Schedule to the Act sets out fifteen categories of actions. These are actions in relation to disputes that were not considered suitable for settlement through community Mediation Boards.

b) where the dispute is in relation to an offence which is set out in the Second Schedule.

The Second Schedule sets out eighteen offences punishable under twenty six (26) sections of the Penal Code.

While mandatory reference to Mediation is not required in the case of disputes above Rs. 500,000/=, it is possible for the parties to submit the dispute for Mediation voluntarily, unless the dispute is one in respect of which an application for settlement cannot be entertained by a Mediation Board.

The categories of disputes that cannot be entertained by a Mediation Board, even if the value of the dispute is below Rs. 500,000/=, are the following –

where one party is the State; or

where one party is a public officer and the dispute relates to the recovery of property, money or other dues ; or

where the Attorney General has initiated proceedings in respect of an offence.

The Mediation (Special Categories of Disputes) Act, No. 21 of 2003-

The rationale for this Act was motivated by the reality that Mediation is the more appropriate method to resolve certain categories of disputes where positions based on strict legal rights and technicalities must give way to accord primacy to the needs of parties to address the underlying concerns. The challenge to reduce the litigation load in courts was also becoming a very serious one. The Act provides for the Minister to establish Mediation Boards to provide mediation services in respect of defined categories of disputes, in identified areas of the country. The category of dispute, the areas to which it will apply and the monetary threshold below which these disputes must mandatorily be referred to Mediation, are required to be set out in Orders made by the Minister¹. An important statutory guideline that the Minister is required to consider to determine the categories of disputes is, “the need to provide for the meaningful resolution of disputes relating to social and economic issues.“¹ It’s an important policy decision to be taken based on real needs of the people.

While the community Mediation Boards are manned by volunteers who are not required to have any specific educational qualifications, the distinguishing feature of the 2003 Act is that the Minister is required to prescribe by Regulation, the qualifications that a Mediator must possess having regard to the expertise required of Members, considering the nature of the categories of disputes that must be mediated. Different qualifications may be prescribed for different categories of disputes. The appointments are made by the same Mediation Boards Commission referred to in the 1988 Act.

Mediation Boards were established under this Act in 2005 after the Tsunami of 2004 for the resolution of tsunami related disputes and in 2015 to resolve land disputes in the Administrative Districts in the North and East. It was accepted that Mediation was the more meaningful method to address land disputes that arose after the North East ethnic conflict. The Orders currently in force as at February 2022, provide for the following¹ :

It is absolutely important that the persons who will function as Mediators are trained in the techniques and skills of mediation. Without proper, adequate and focussed training, the results will be disastrous and will negate the intentions of the Act since the success of mediation in conflict resolution is totally dependent on the intrinsic value of the techniques adopted. Mediation is not a process that can succeed if you simply have the ear of a patient listener.

The UN Convention on Mediation

Mediation has increased in acceptance over the years because of its benefits. It is this popularity and its increasing use in international commercial dispute resolution that inspired UNCITRAL’s Working Group on Dispute Settlement to address the need for a harmonious regime that will set standards for the cross-border enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. As a result of its work, the Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation was adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on December 20, 2018,

The Preamble to the Convention recites that the Parties –

“recognize the value for international trade, of mediation as a method for settling commercial disputes in which the parties in dispute request a third person or persons to assist them in their attempt to settle the dispute amicably;

note that mediation is increasingly used in international and domestic commercial practice as an alternative to litigation;

considers that the use of mediation results in significant benefits, such as reducing the instances where a dispute leads to the termination of a commercial relationship, facilitating the administration of international transactions by commercial parties and producing savings in the administration of justice by States; and

are convinced that the establishment of a framework for international settlement agreements resulting from mediation that is acceptable to States with different legal, social and economic systems would contribute to the development of harmonious international economic relations “

The Convention opened for signature on August 7, 2019 in Singapore and Forty Six (46) countries including Sri Lanka became signatories on that same day. Popularly knows as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation”, it came into force on September 12, 2020. As at February, 2022 it has been signed by 55 countries and ratified by 9. Sri Lanka is now obligated to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. UNCITRAL’s work on the Convention and its adoption by the UNGA, is evidence of the the global acceptance of Mediation to resolve commercial disputes.

The CCC- ICLP International ADR Center of Sri Lanka (IADRC)

In 2018, the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC) and the Institute for the Development of Commercial Law and Practice (ICLP) in a joint venture, incorporated a not for profit company and established a new Center, the CCC-ICLP International ADR Center (IADRC) to provide ADR services. It was a response to the need of the business community for more efficient dispute resolution. The novelty of the new Center is that it offers mediation services in addition to arbitration.

Both Institutions were aware of the global trends that favored ADR and the successes of Regional Centers. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) established in 1985, the Singapore Mediation Center (SMC) launched in 1997, the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM) established in 2001, the International ADR Center of the Indian Merchants Chamber (IIMC) established in 2015 and the Malaysian Mediation Center (MMC) established in 1999 under the auspices of the Bar Council of Malaysia, offered inspiration. These centers offered services that included Arbitration and Mediation. The Singapore Mediation Center states that, as at Feb 2022, it has mediated 5,200 matters worth over $10 billion since its launch. The rate of successful mediations is stated to be 70% with 90% of those having been settled in one day! The high rate of success can be attributed to the skill and competence and the professionalism of the Mediators. Compliance with the mediation process and using the special skills and techniques are key to achieving good outcomes and hence the absolute need for training.

The IADRC launched its Arbitration and Mediation Rules in April 2021 and has trained Mediators and Arbitrators who are available to provide services. The Arbitration Rules of the Center seek to eliminate some of the common causes for delay. It’s the only Center that offers institutionalized Mediation for commercial dispute resolution. Arbitration and Mediation services can be administered in compliance with these Rules of the Center, or the UNCITRAL Rules, or any others that may be adopted on an ad hoc basis.

The Mediation Rules of the IADRC

The CCC-ICLP Mediation Rules incorporate all the internationally recognized standards that are known to define the Mediation process. The Rules provide for the following-

 To commence the Mediation, an application (a “Request for Mediation”) must be made to the Center either by one party or jointly by all disputing parties, requesting Mediation services for the settlement of the dispute.

 After completing preliminary administrative steps such as obtaining, where appropriate, the consent of all parties to pursue Mediation, the parties are required to sign the “Agreement to Mediate”. This Agreement includes an obligation to “abide by and comply with the Mediation Rules of the Center or other Rules that have been agreed to.”

The language of the Mediation will be as agreed to, by the parties.

The next step is to appoint a Mediator or a panel of Mediators. The disputing parties have the discretion to nominate a Mediator from among those accredited by the Center or from outside of that list. Usually, a Mediation will be handled by a single Mediator. However, a panel could be appointed if so desired, where there are complex issues in a dispute.

Importantly, the Mediator has to be independent, impartial and neutral throughout the process. Several safeguards are included to ensure compliance with this principle.

The Mediation sessions then commence. The Mediator manages the process and will, for this purpose convene sessions on dates and times agreed to by the parties, at a neutral venue.

The process will commence with a joint session where all parties are present. The Mediator will explain the principles that apply and explain the process. Thereafter the Mediator will decide when to have joint sessions with all parties, and individual sessions (called a “caucus”) with each party.

 At these sessions, the parties have the opportunity to discuss the matters in dispute from their own perspective. The statements, disclosures and proposals made at a Mediation are maintained in absolute confidence and are made without prejudice. This principle provides the confidence to disputing parties that nothing said can be used in any other dispute resolution process or other forum. The Mediator and the parties cannot be compelled to give evidence as to any matters disclosed at the Mediation in a court of law.

The Rules set out the obligations of the parties – attendance at the sessions in person and in the case of corporate entities attendance through a representative who is given full authority to sign off on a Settlement Agreement; compliance with the rule on confidentiality; full and honest disclosure of matters material to the dispute.

Parties are not entitled to legal representation at the sessions but may call in a Lawyer for the sole purpose of obtaining advice. However, a Lawyer who is a full time employee of a corporate is not excluded from participating at the sessions on behalf of a corporate entity.

During these sessions, a Mediator will not give directions or instructions on how to settle the dispute. The Mediator will however question the parties in a non coercive manner to help them reach a new understanding of the issues in dispute and of the concerns of the other party.

A Mediation is terminated either with an agreement to settle or with an agreement that no settlement is possible.

Where there is an agreement to settle, the Mediator is required to explain to the parties the terms and conditions of the settlement and the obligations that each party is assuming under the agreement. A settlement Agreement will be set in writing and signed by the parties and the Mediator. This is an agreement that binds the parties as any other agreement, and each party has a legal obligation to honour its terms and conditions.

Where the Mediator determines that continuing the Mediation is futile since it’s unlikely to result in a settlement considering the progress of the Mediation, or where a party informs that it wishes to withdraw from a Mediation, the Mediation will be terminated.

In either event, all the documents submitted to the Center by each party will be returned.

In normal circumstances a mediated agreement should stand the test of time since many steps have been taken to ensure it’s sustainability. However, the Rules provide for an application to be made to revise or revoke an Agreement on very limited grounds, ie. On the grounds that a) the terms were agreed to, without a proper appreciation of the obligations; or b) circumstances have arisen that prevent a party honoring the obligations; or c) that there was bias on the part of the Mediator. The last ground is most unlikely given the several steps that are required to be taken to ensure impartiality. However, this ground is included as a principle of good governance since it’s a vital feature of Mediation. An application to revise or revoke will be inquired into by the Center and a settlement will be attempted in compliance with the same principles that apply to a Mediation.

 Mediation is not an expensive process. However there are fees to be paid. The Fees for a Mediation include Administration fees as well as fees for the Mediator/s. The fees are prescribed by the Center in a Fee Schedule and will be a predetermined sum which will be made known to the parties prior to the commencement of the Mediation. There will be no surprises.

Conclusion

Mediation is not the most appropriate method of dispute resolution for all categories of disputes. That’s accepted. Even with the twin evils of delay and expense certain causes of action need to be determined by a court of law. Mediation however, has gained global recognition as the better method for many kinds of disputes ranging from family and workplace disputes to construction and commercial disputes.

Given the potential to be speedy and cost effective, and the high level of user satisfaction, the services provided by the CCC-ICLP IADR Center will no doubt improve the commercial dispute resolution landscape in Sri Lanka. It will also contribute to improve Sri Lanka’s performance in the contract enforcement indicator in the Doing Business rankings. The enactment of domestic legislation to enable the enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements in line with the Singapore Convention will also certainly enhance Sri Lanka’s efforts to attract foreign investors. The slogan “Mediate, don’t litigate” is gaining in popularity given the reality that it’s not always smart to litigate to be right.

All News Advertisement

Features

When Batting Was Poetry: Remembering David Gower

Published

18 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

For many Sri Lankans growing up in the late nineteen fifties and early sixties, our cricketing heroes were Englishmen. I am not entirely sure why that was. Perhaps it was a colonial hangover, or perhaps it reflected the way cricket was taught locally, with an emphasis on technical correctness, a high left elbow, and the bat close to the pad. English cricket, with its traditions and orthodoxy, became the benchmark.

I, on the other hand, could not see beyond Sir Garfield Sobers and the West Indian team. Sir Garfield remains my all-time hero, although only by a whisker ahead of Muttiah Muralitharan. For me, Caribbean flair and attacking cricket were infinitely superior to the Englishmen’s conservatism and defensive approach.

That said, England has produced many outstanding cricketers, with David Gower and Ian Botham being my favourites. Players such as Colin Cowdrey, Tom Graveney, Mike Denness, Tony Lewis, Mike Brealey, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Tony Greig, and David Gower were great ambassadors for England, particularly when touring the South Asian subcontinent, which posed certain challenges for touring sides until about three decades ago. Their calm and dignified conduct when touring is a contrast to the behaviour of the current lot.

I am no longer an avid cricket viewer, largely because my blood pressure tends to rise when I watch our Sri Lankan players. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised recently when I was flipping through the TV channels to hear David Gower’s familiar voice commentating. It brought back fond memories of watching him bat during my time in the UK. I used to look forward to the summer for two reasons. To feel the sun on my back and watch David Gower bat!

A debut that announced a star

One of my most vivid cricketing memories is watching, in 1978, a young English batsman pull the very first ball he faced in Test cricket to the boundary. Most debutants play cautiously, trying to avoid the dreaded zero, but Gower nonchalantly swivelled and pulled a short ball from Pakistan’s Liaquat Ali for four. It was immediately apparent that a special talent had arrived.

To place that moment in perspective, Marvan Atapattu—an excellent Sri Lankan batsman—took three Tests and four innings to score his first run, yet later compiled 16 Test centuries.

Gower went on to score 56 in his first innings and captivated spectators with his full repertoire of strokes, particularly his exquisite cover drive. It is often said that a left-hander’s cover drive is one of the most pleasurable sights in cricket, and watching Sobers, Gower, or Brian Lara execute the cover drive made the entrance ticket worthwhile.

A young talent in a time of change

Gower made his Test debut at just 21, rare for an English player of that era. World cricket was in turmoil due to the Kerry Packer revolution, and England had lost senior players such as Tony Greig, Alan Knott, and Derek Underwood. Selectors were searching for young talent, and Gower’s inclusion injected fresh impetus.

Gower scored his first Test century in only his fourth match, just a month after his debut, against New Zealand, and a few months later scored his maiden Ashes century at Perth.

He finished with 18 Test centuries from 117 matches. His finest test innings, in my view, was the magnificent 154 not out at Kingston in 1981 against Holding, Marshall, Croft, and Garner. Batting for nearly eight hours and facing 403 balls, he set aside flair for determination to save the Test.

He and Ian Botham also benefited from playing their initial years under Mike Brealey, an average batsman but an outstanding leader. Rodney Hogg, the Australian fast bowler, famously said Brealey had a ‘degree in people’, and both young stars flourished under his guidance.

Captaincy and criticism and overall record

Few English batsmen delighted and frustrated spectators and analysts as much as Gower. The languid cover drive, so elegant and so pleasurable to the spectators, also resulted in a fair number of dismissals that, at times, gave the impression of carelessness to both spectators and journalists.

Despite his approach, which at times appeared casual, he was appointed as captain of the English team in 1983 and served for three years before being removed in 1986. He was again appointed captain in 1989 for the Ashes series. He led England in 1985 to a famous Ashes series win as well as a series win in India in1984-85.

In the eyes of some, the captaincy might not have been the best suited to his style of play. However, he scored 732 runs whilst captaining the team during the 1985 Ashes series, proving that he was able handle the pressure.

Under Gower, England lost two consecutive series to the great West Indian teams 5-0, which led to the coining of the phrase “Blackwashed”! He was somewhat unlucky that he captained the English team when the West Indies were at the peak, possessing a fearsome array of fast bowlers.

David Gower scored 3,269 test runs against Australia in 42 test matches. He scored nine centuries and 12 fifties, averaging nearly 45 runs per inning. His record against Australia as an English batsman is only second to Sir Jack Hobbs. Scoring runs against Australia has been a yardstick in determining how good a batsman is. Therefore, his record against Australia can easily rebut the critics who said that he was too casual. He scored 8,231 runs in 117 test matches and 3,170 runs in 114 One Day Internationals.

A gentleman of the game free of controversies

Unlike the other great English cricketer at the time, Ian Botham, David was not involved in any controversies during his illustrious career. The only incident that generated negative press was a low-level flight he undertook in a vintage Tiger Moth biplane in Queensland during the 1990-91 Ashes tour of Australia. The team management and the English press, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill. David retired from international cricket in 1992.

In 1984, during the tour of India, due to the uncertain security situation after the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the English team travelled to Sri Lanka for a couple of matches. I was fortunate enough to get David to sign his book “With Time to Spare”. This was soon after he returned to the pavilion after being dismissed. There was no refusal or rudeness when I requested his signature.

He was polite and obliged despite still being in pads. Although I did not know David Gower, his willingness that day to oblige a spectator exemplified the man’s true character. A gentleman who played the game as it should be, and a great ambassador of England and world cricket. He was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2009 and appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1992 for his services to sport.

By Sanjeewa Jayaweera

Features

Sri Lanka Through Loving Eyes:A Call to Fix What Truly Matters

Published

18 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

Love of country, pride, and the responsibility to be honest

I am a Sri Lankan who has lived in Australia for the past 38 years. Australia has been very good to my family and me, yet Sri Lanka has never stopped being home. That connection endures, which is why we return every second year—sometimes even annually—not out of nostalgia, but out of love and pride in our country.

My recent visit reaffirmed much of what makes Sri Lanka exceptional: its people, culture, landscapes, and hospitality remain truly world-class. Yet loving one’s country also demands honesty, particularly when shortcomings risk undermining our future as a serious global tourism destination.

When Sacred and Iconic Sites Fall Short

One of the most confronting experiences occurred during our visit to Sri Pada (Adam’s Peak). This sacred site, revered across multiple faiths, attracts pilgrims and tourists from around the world. Sadly, the severe lack of basic amenities—especially clean, accessible toilets—was deeply disappointing. At moments of real need, facilities were either unavailable or unhygienic.

This is not a luxury issue. It is a matter of dignity.

For a site of such immense religious and cultural significance, the absence of adequate sanitation is unacceptable. If Sri Lanka is to meet its ambitious tourism targets, essential infrastructure, such as public toilets, must be prioritized immediately at Sri Pada and at all major tourist and pilgrimage sites.

Infrastructure strain is also evident in Ella, particularly around the iconic Nine Arches Bridge. While the attraction itself is breathtaking, access to the site is poorly suited to the sheer volume of visitors. We were required to walk up a steep, uneven slope to reach the railway lines—manageable for some, but certainly not ideal or safe for elderly visitors, families, or those with mobility challenges. With tourist numbers continuing to surge, access paths, safety measures, and crowd management urgently needs to be upgraded.

Missed opportunities and first impressions

Our visit to Yala National Park, particularly Block 5, was another missed opportunity. While the natural environment remains extraordinary, the overall experience did not meet expectations. Notably, our guide—experienced and deeply knowledgeable—offered several practical suggestions for improving visitor experience and conservation outcomes. Unfortunately, he also noted that such feedback often “falls on deaf ears.” Ignoring insights from those on the ground is a loss Sri Lanka can ill afford.

First impressions also matter, and this is where Bandaranaike International Airport still falls short. While recent renovations have improved the physical space, customs and immigration processes lack coherence during peak hours. Poorly formed queues, inconsistent enforcement, and inefficient passenger flow create unnecessary delays and frustration—often the very first experience visitors have of Sri Lanka.

Excellence exists—and the fundamentals must follow

That said, there is much to celebrate.

Our stays at several hotels, especially The Kingsbury, were outstanding. The service, hospitality, and quality of food were exceptional—on par with the best anywhere in the world. These experiences demonstrate that Sri Lanka already possesses the talent and capability to deliver excellence when systems and leadership align.

This contrast is precisely why the existing gaps are so frustrating: they are solvable.

Sri Lankans living overseas will always defend our country against unfair criticism and negative global narratives. But defending Sri Lanka does not mean remaining silent when basic standards are not met. True patriotism lies in constructive honesty.

If Sri Lanka is serious about welcoming the world, it must urgently address fundamentals: sanitation at sacred sites, safe access to major attractions, well-managed national parks, and efficient airport processes. These are not optional extras—they are the foundation of sustainable tourism.

This is not written in criticism, but in love. Sri Lanka deserves better, and so do the millions of visitors who come each year, eager to experience the beauty, spirituality, and warmth that our country offers so effortlessly.

The writer can be reached at Jerome.adparagraphams@gmail.com

By Jerome Adams

Features

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Published

18 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Global temperatures in January have been polar opposite – plus 50 Celsius down under in Australia, and minus 45 Celsius up here in North America (I live in Canada). Between extremes of many kinds, not just thermal, the world order stands ruptured. That was the succinct message in what was perhaps the most widely circulated and listened to speeches of this century, delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos, in January. But all is not lost. Who seems to be getting lost in the mayhem of his own making is Donald Trump himself, the President of the United States and the world’s disruptor in chief.

After a year of issuing executive orders of all kinds, President Trump is being forced to retreat in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by the public reaction to the knee-jerk shooting and killing of two protesters in three weeks by federal immigration control and border patrol agents. The latter have been sent by the Administration to implement Trump’s orders for the arbitrary apprehension of anyone looking like an immigrant to be followed by equally arbitrary deportation.

The Proper Way

Many Americans are not opposed to deporting illegal and criminal immigrants, but all Americans like their government to do things the proper way. It is not the proper way in the US to send federal border and immigration agents to swarm urban neighbourhood streets and arrest neighbours among neighbours, children among other school children, and the employed among other employees – merely because they look different, they speak with an accent, or they are not carrying their papers on their person.

Americans generally swear by the Second Amendment and its questionably interpretive right allowing them to carry guns. But they have no tolerance when they see government forces turn their guns on fellow citizens. Trump and his administration cronies went too far and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Barely a month has passed in 2026, but Trump’s second term has already run into multiple storms.

There’s more to come between now and midterm elections in November. In the highly entrenched American system of checks and balances it is virtually impossible to throw a government out of office – lock, stock and barrel. Trump will complete his term, but more likely as a lame duck than an ordering executive. At the same time, the wounds that he has created will linger long even after he is gone.

Equally on the external front, it may not be possible to immediately reverse the disruptions caused by Trump after his term is over, but other countries and leaders are beginning to get tired of him and are looking for alternatives bypassing Trump, and by the same token bypassing the US. His attempt to do a Venezuela over Greenland has been spectacularly pushed back by a belatedly awakening Europe and America’s other western allies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The wags have been quick to remind us that he is mostly a TACO (Trump always chickens out) Trump.

Grandiose Scheme or Failure

His grandiose scheme to establish a global Board of Peace with himself as lifetime Chair is all but becoming a starter. No country or leader of significant consequence has accepted the invitation. The motley collection of acceptors includes five East European countries, three Central Asian countries, eight Middle Eastern countries, two from South America, and four from Asia – Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan. The latter’s rush to join the club will foreclose any chance of India joining the Board. Countries are allowed a term of three years, but if you cough up $1 billion, could be member for life. Trump has declared himself to be lifetime chair of the Board, but he is not likely to contribute a dime. He might claim expenses, though. The Board of Peace was meant to be set up for the restoration of Gaza, but Trump has turned it into a retirement project for himself.

There is also the ridiculous absurdity of Trump continuing as chair even after his term ends and there is a different president in Washington. How will that arrangement work? If the next president turns out to be a Democrat, Trump may deny the US a seat on the board, cash or no cash. That may prove to be good for the UN and its long overdue restructuring. Although Trump’s Board has raised alarms about the threat it poses to the UN, the UN may end up being the inadvertent beneficiary of Trump’s mercurial madness.

The world is also beginning to push back on Trump’s tariffs. Rather, Trump’s tariffs are spurring other countries to forge new trade alliances and strike new trade deals. On Tuesday, India and EU struck the ‘mother of all’ trade deals between them, leaving America the poorer for it. Almost the next day , British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced in Beijing that they had struck a string of deals on travel, trade and investments. “Not a Big Bang Free Trade Deal” yet, but that seems to be the goal. The Canadian Prime Minister has been globe-trotting to strike trade deals and create investment opportunities. He struck a good reciprocal deal with China, is looking to India, and has turned to South Korea and a consortium from Germany and Norway to submit bids for a massive submarine supply contract supplemented by investments in manufacturing and mineral industries. The informal first-right-of-refusal privilege that US had in Canada for defense contracts is now gone, thanks to Trump.

The disruptions that Trump has created in the world order may not be permanent or wholly irreversible, as Prime Minister Carney warned at Davos. But even the short term effects of Trump’s disruptions will be significant to all of US trading partners, especially smaller countries like Sri Lanka. Regardless of what they think of Trump, leaders of governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs. That will be in addition to everything else that governments have to do even if they do not have Trump’s disruptions to deal with.

Bland or Boisterous

Against the backdrop of Trump-induced global convulsions, politics in Sri Lanka is in a very stable mode. This is not to diminish the difficulties and challenges that the vast majority of Sri Lankans are facing – in meeting their daily needs, educating their children, finding employment for the youth, accessing timely health care and securing affordable care for the elderly. The challenges are especially severe for those devastated by cyclone Ditwah.

Politically, however, the government is not being tested by the opposition. And the once boisterous JVP/NPP has suddenly become ‘bland’ in government. “Bland works,” is a Canadian political quote coined by Bill Davis a nationally prominent premier of the Province of Ontario. Davis was responding to reporters looking for dramatic politics instead of boring blandness. He was Premier of Ontario for 14 years (1971-1985) and won four consecutive elections before retiring.

No one knows for how long the NPP government will be in power in Sri Lanka or how many more elections it is going to win, but there is no question that the government is singularly focused on winning the next parliamentary election, or both the presidential and parliamentary elections – depending on what happens to the system of directly electing the executive president.

The government is trying to grow comfortable in being on cruise control to see through the next parliamentary election. Its critics on the other hand, are picking on anything that happens on any day to blame or lampoon the government. The government for all its tight control of its members and messaging is not being able to put out quickly the fires that have been erupting. There are the now recurrent matters of the two AGs (non-appointment of the Auditor General and alleged attacks on the Attorney General) and the two ERs (Educational Reform and Electricity Reform), the timing of the PC elections, and the status of constitutional changes to end the system of directly electing the president.

There are also criticisms of high profile resignations due to government interference and questionable interdictions. Two recent resignations have drawn public attention and criticism, viz., the resignation of former Air Chief Marshal Harsha Abeywickrama from his position as the Chairman of Airport & Aviation Services, and the earlier resignation of Attorney-at-Law Ramani Jayasundara from her position as Chair of the National Women’s Commission. Both have been attributed to political interferences. In addition, the interdiction of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament has also raised eyebrows and criticisms. The interdiction in parliament could not have come at a worse time for the government – just before the passing away of Nihal Seniviratne, who had served Sri Lanka’s parliament for 33 years and the last 13 of them as its distinguished Secretary General.

In a more political sense, echoes of the old JVP boisterousness periodically emanate in the statements of the JVP veteran and current Cabinet Minister K.D. Lal Kantha. Newspaper columnists love to pounce on his provocative pronouncements and make all manner of prognostications. Mr. Lal Kantha’s latest reported musing was that: “It is true our government is in power, but we still don’t have state power. We will bring about a revolution soon and seize state power as well.”

This was after he had reportedly taken exception to filmmaker Asoka Handagama’s one liner: “governing isn’t as easy as it looks when you are in the opposition,” and allegedly threatened to answer such jibes no matter who stood in the way and what they were wearing “black robes, national suits or the saffron.” Ironically, it was the ‘saffron part’ that allegedly led to the resignation of Harsha Abeywickrama from the Airport & Aviation Services. And President AKD himself has come under fire for his Thaipongal Day statement in Jaffna about Sinhala Buddhist pilgrims travelling all the way from the south to observe sil at the Tiisa Vihare in Thayiddy, Jaffna.

The Vihare has been the subject of controversy as it was allegedly built under military auspices on the property of local people who evacuated during the war. Being a master of the spoken word, the President could have pleaded with the pilgrims to show some sensitivity and empathy to the displaced Tamil people rather than blaming them (pilgrims) of ‘hatred.’ The real villains are those who sequestered property and constructed the building, and the government should direct its ire on them and not the pilgrims.

In the scheme of global things, Sri Lanka’s political skirmishes are still teacup storms. Yet it is never nice to spill your tea in public. Public embarrassments can be politically hurtful. As for Minister Lal Kantha’s distinction between governmental mandate and state power – this is a false dichotomy in a fundamentally practical sense. He may or may not be aware of it, but this distinction quite pre-occupied the ideologues of the 1970-75 United Front government. Their answer of appointing Permanent Secretaries from outside the civil service was hardly an answer, and in some instances the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.

As well, what used to be a leftist pre-occupation is now a right wing insistence especially in America with Trump’s identification of the so called ‘deep state’ as the enemy of the people. I don’t think the NPP government wants to go there. Rather, it should show creative originality in making the state, whether deep or shallow, to be of service to the people. There is a general recognition that the government has been doing just that in providing redress to the people impacted by the cyclone. A sign of that recognition is the number of people contributing to the disaster relief fund and in substantial amounts. The government should not betray this trust but build on it for the benefit of all. And better do it blandly than boisterously.

by Rajan Philips