Features

Human rights and US double standards

Published

3 years ago

2023/05/8

Thilina Walpola

By Daya Gamage

Foreign Service National Political Specialist (ret) U.S. Department of State

In November 2019, President Donald Trump granted clemency to three controversial US military figures charged with war crimes, arguing that such moves would give American troops “the confidence to fight” without worrying about potential legal repercussions. Two army officers were granted full pardons for the murder of Afghans. Trump also restored the rank of a special warfare operator who had been tried for a string of alleged war crimes. It was claimed that the criminal charges were an overreaction to actions taken in the chaos and confusion of battle. Such actions validate the widely-held view that the US does not hold itself to the same standards it tries to impose on them.

If Sri Lanka has an iota of dignity – I am not suggesting a free-for-all with Washington – it should make ‘some’ diplomatic moves on the basis of the following:

The American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) was an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (House Resolution 4775) passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the launch of the so-called Global War on Terror. The ASPA aims to “protect U.S. military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the Government against prosecution by an international criminal court to which the U.S. is not a party.” Among other defencive provisions the Act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It even prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are parties to the Court. In 2002, during the administration of Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, Sri Lanka signed with the U.S. an “Article 98 Agreement,” agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court. This was done under pressure during the 2002-2004 ‘Peace Talks’ in which Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powel and his Deputy Richard Armitage were directly involved in lifting the terrorist/separatist LTTE on par with the legitimate government of Sri Lanka.

This shows the hypocrisy and double standards of Washington policymakers who, with no substantial data and evidence, relied on information furnished by an NGO to blacklist former Navy Commander, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda.

In September 2009, four months after the conclusion of the Eelam War IV, the US Senate Appropriations Committee had mandated that the State Department prepare a report on possible war crimes committed during the final phase of the conflict during 2008-2009 in Sri Lanka. (It should be mentioned that when the ICC decided to send officials during the Trump administration to Washington to interview USG personnel on US atrocities in Afghanistan, USG suspended their visas and declared that the US was a sovereign nation for such interference). The report was completed in October despite acknowledged evidentiary limitations, but the allegations it uncovered of abuses by government officials defined thereafter the policy of the US and some EU countries toward the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL). The report’s findings, based largely on hearsay, also created an atmosphere of credibility about human rights violations that was exploited for anti-Colombo propaganda by activist sections of the Tamil Diaspora. The US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues articulated a double standard that was common in the US foreign policy establishment at that time. He acknowledged “that honestly in a conflict like that against the LTTE it was necessary to use very strong force to defeat a group that was committing horrendous crimes against the civilian population. But on the other hand, that action had to comply with the laws of war.” A democratic government, in other words, was held responsible to rules of warfare that autocratic insurgents were not, even though that would mean that the democratic government could be handicapped in defending its sovereignty, system of government, and domestic rule of law. Such accountability, of course, did not apply to the US.

These disgraceful double standards of Washington policymakers and lawmakers in dealing with Sri Lanka’s ‘national issues’ since the advent of the separatist war in the north in the 1980s are now very broadly dealt with by two personnel who worked within the U.S. Department of State for thirty years in the area of foreign affairs: One is this writer who is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist once accredited to the Political Section of the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, and the other, Dr. Robert K. Boggs, a retired Senior Foreign Service (FS) and Intelligence Officer who served as Political Counselor at the Colombo Diplomatic Mission and in many senior positions in the State Department in Washington. Their investigative work is still in progress. Their manuscript ‘Defending Democracy: Lessons in Strategic Diplomacy from U.S.-Sri Lankan Relations” is nearing completion with alarming disclosures, provocative analyses and interpretations based on their up-close and personal knowledge and understanding of Washington’s foreign policy trajectory in Sri Lanka – then and now – and how it used ‘double standards’ in handling its foreign relations with Sri Lanka reducing Sri Lanka to some level of a client state. Sri Lanka’s own infantile behaviour, ignorance of its own strengths and inarticulate manner in which it was handling foreign relations since the 1980s contributed too to become a subservient state allowing ‘national issues’ to become ‘global’ ones.

‘Moral Arbiter’

How can the US be a moral arbiter in the war against terrorism if it has never tried or prosecuted most of the Americans responsible for kidnappings, secret detentions and torture of suspects abroad after 9/11? Why has it so uncritically accepted the civilian casualty figures of international NGOs, however righteously motivated, regarding hostilities in Sri Lanka but consistently rejected them regarding its own collateral killings? And does the U.S. really believe that, because it tries sincerely to minimise harm to civilians, it is morally justified in pursuing tactics that inevitably will cause casualties among non-combatants? If so, do the compulsions of military tactics not similarly exonerate other governments fighting other groups recognised by the international community as terrorists? Are no allowances granted to military forces that do not have the U.S.’ access to precise overhead targeting intelligence and so-called precision weapons? If the U.S. can excuse itself from culpability for civilian deaths it causes in counterinsurgency operations in poor countries far from North America, are foreign governments not also excused for using their full offensive capabilities to defeat domestic terrorists posing immediate threats to their national integrity and democracy? Abuses by the United States do not excuse abuses by Sri Lanka, but U.S. abuses tarnish the U.S.’ moral authority, weaken U.S. claims to international leadership, provoke deep resentment of the U.S., and provoke even more anti-U.S. terrorism.

Contradictory position

Compounding its hypocrisy in Sri Lanka is the long US record of self-righteously shielding its own military from investigation by international human rights tribunals. Since 1986 the USG has adopted the contradictory position of supporting the rule of law in the international system by participating in litigation before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but at the same time refusing to submit itself to the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the grounds that this would violate U.S. sovereignty. While Sri Lankan forces were fighting the LTTE, the US was unleashing massive amounts of firepower in Iraq that killed thousands of civilians. In Afghanistan the U.S. allied itself with, and thus strengthened, war lords and provincial officials with strong records as counterinsurgency fighters, but has ignored credible reports of these allies’ corruption and human rights abuses. At the same time, the U.S. has become increasingly reliant in its international campaign against extremism on air power, including armed drones that routinely injures and kills civilians. Yet in September 2018 the US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, threatened sanctions against the “illegitimate” ICC if it investigated credible allegations of war crimes by U.S. military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan. In earlier diatribes against the ICC, Bolton reportedly acknowledged that the U.S. needed immunity because its use of torture, harsh imprisonment and some counterterrorist tactics constituted crimes under international law, which he dismissed.

At the time that the United States was pressuring Colombo to accept “national, international, and hybrid mechanisms to clarify the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared,” the USG had not itself ratified the UN convention of 2006 requiring state party to criminalise enforced disappearances and take steps to hold those responsible to account. Sri Lanka need not have ‘confronted’ the US, but it had no guts to question it. The US jointly with Sri Lanka during the Wickremesinghe-Sirisena regime presented the 30/1 Resolution in UNHRC in October 2015 for ‘hybrid’ commission.

Despite a resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 19, 2020 calling on the USG to ratify the international convention, this still has not happened. The U.S.’ long history of rejecting accountability is strongly rooted in legislation.

Washington has used different standards for the legitimate administration in Sri Lanka which was combating a separatist-terrorist movement, and its overseas advocates, fundraisers and advisors. It needs to be stressed here that Washington ignored the atrocities committed by the Tamil Tigers. A democratic government was made to abide by the rules of warfare, but the terrorists were not required to do so. Such accountability, of course, did not apply to the US.

This point of view may have been based on a legal interpretation common in the past that if a state actor in an internal conflict is a party to international covenants of humanitarian law, the state actor needs to abide by the provisions ratified by the United Nations and is responsible for any violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In contrast, if the opponent of the legally constituted government is an armed non-state actor (ANSA) and therefore not a signatory to international covenants, the general opinion was that it has no obligation to uphold the provisions. However, due to the growing number of internal armed conflicts that emerged over the years, the international community was forced to realize that new interpretations or legal instruments were needed to regulate non-international conflicts with non-state participants.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, later Protocol II, several other treaties and customary law all deal with non- international armed conflicts. Neither the U.S. nor the GSL is a signatory of Protocol II, but both are parties to Article 3. The latter requires that each Party to a conflict in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties is proscribed from a range of inhumane behaviours, including cruel treatment and torture, the taking of hostages, and extra-legal executions. Construed broadly, many of the provisions of the Article are applicable not only to the LTTE fighting cadre but also to non-combatants supporting them by fundraising, propaganda, legal counselling, and the like. If the USG were serious about accountability, it would call for surviving Tiger leaders and their international accessories to be tried in international courts. Any questions about the legality of such action in U.S. courts were resolved in June 2010, when the US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide material support to foreign terrorist organisations, even if that help is itself not violent. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law’s prohibition on some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department determines engage in terrorism does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Despite this growing body of support for legal action against non-state terrorists, the USG continues to target only the GSL for human rights violations.

In February 2020, for example, the USG announced sanctions against Sri Lankan military chief Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva, who served as a division commander leading the final assault against the Tigers. At the end of April 2023, Admiral of the Fleet Wasantha Karannagoda was declared persona-non-grata in the United States by Washington. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. would impose individual sanctions against Gen. Silva, denying him and his family admittance to the U.S., “due to gross violations of human rights.” The State Department declared the same, imposing individual sanctions against Karannagoda. Nothing similar has been said or done with regard to the expatriate Tamils, now domiciled in Western countries, who served as advisors and agents to LTTE leader Prabhakaran and his top lieutenants.

In June 2010 the US Supreme Court upheld the federal law criminalizing material support to foreign terrorist organisations in a case brought by the LTTE and the Kurdish PKK, contesting their designations as FTOs. In its written opinion the Court stated, inter alia, that:

“The PKK and the LTTE are deadly groups. It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimises and furthers their terrorist means. Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways. The record shows that designated foreign terrorist organisations do not maintain organisational firewalls between social, political, and terrorist operations, or financial firewalls between funds raised for humanitarian activities and those used to carry out terrorist attacks. Providing material support in any form would also undermine cooperative international efforts to prevent terrorism and strain the United States’ relationships with its allies, including those that are defending themselves against violent insurgencies waged by foreign terrorist groups.”

It is clear from the foregoing that the USG has the legal tools to pursue its own residents and citizens who helped to defend and empower the LTTE. Unfortunately, despite more than a decade of efforts to pressure the GSL to accept accountability for war crimes committed by its forces, the USG has not taken commensurate steps to pursue accountability for LTTE supporters at home. There are believed to be thousands of former LTTE activists living safely in the US, Canada, and Europe who have never had to face justice for their roles in enabling more than two decades of vicious crimes and human rights abuses. Many continue to use their foreign domiciles as platforms from which to militate for a separate Tamil homeland and to demonise the Colombo government. Had the USG, coordinating with its law enforcement partners internationally, worked to disable the LTTE’s support network during the war, it could have contributed to a negotiated settlement or at least saved countless lives.

A high-profile example of an expatriate activist in the U.S. is Visvanathan Rudrakumaran, who, according to his own website, served during the war as “international legal advisor to Prabhakaran and in-charge of [the LTTE’s] international and diplomatic affairs.”

This writer and his co-author have gone deep into this issue of Washington’s faulty foreign relations and the blatant double standards when dealing with Sri Lanka. Similarly, we have unearthed how Sri Lanka, since the 1980s, has failed not only to defend herself but her inability to make Washington policymakers and lawmakers conversant with the ground situation. In these series of articles, this writer expects professionals and erudite parliamentarians to bring these matters for public debate even now.

(The writer Daya Gamage is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist of the U.S. Department of State once accredited to the Political Section of the U.S. Embassy in Colombo)

All News Advertisement

Features

The challenge of being positive about SAARC

Published

23 hours ago

2026/07/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

The RCSS forum addressed by SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar in progress. (Pic courtesy RCSS)

It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.

Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.

However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?

There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.

The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.

Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.

Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.

The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.

On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.

In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.

Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.

Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.

The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.

These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.

Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.

There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.

However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.

Features

OPA seminar examines Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and growth pathways

Published

23 hours ago

2026/07/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

(L to R) Dr Achinthya Koswatte, Anushan Kapilan, Dr Harsha Aturupane, Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President, OPA and moderator of the discussion, and Eng Chamil Edirimuny, General Secretary, OPA, at the head table.

A seminar, “Sri Lanka’s Economic Crossroads: Navigating Recovery, Resilience and Growth” was recently held by the Organisation of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka (OPA) at the OPA Auditorium, bringing together economists, OPA members, and professionals from diverse fields for an insightful discussion on Sri Lanka’s economic recovery and future growth prospects.

The event was held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, and was jointly organised by the National Issues Committee (NIC) and the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee of the OPA. The event reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to advancing professional excellence, fostering insightful intellectual engagement, facilitating interdisciplinary knowledge exchange and creating a constructive platform for informed dialogue on issues of national importance.

The panel of speakers comprised Dr. Harsha Aturupane, Lead Economist and Programme Leader for Human Development at the World Bank for Sri Lanka and the Maldives; Dr. Achinthya Koswatta, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, and Anushan Kapilan, Lead Economist at Verité Research.

In his welcome address, the President of the OPA emphasised that Sri Lanka was at a critical juncture in its economic recovery journey where sustained reforms, effective implementation, and collective national commitment are essential to achieving long-term stability, resilience and inclusive growth. He noted that the country had experienced one of the most severe economic crises in its history with the economy contracting by 7.8 percent in 2022 and a further 11.5 percent in 2023, resulting in significant economic and social challenges.

Delivering his introductory remarks Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee, underscored the need to move beyond short-term economic stabilisation towards a comprehensive agenda of structural transformation. He observed that the economic crisis had revealed deep-rooted weaknesses within the economy, including persistent fiscal pressures, rising public debt, foreign exchange limitations, and insufficient diversification of the export base. He stressed that addressing these challenges through strategic reforms, institutional strengthening and long-term economic planning would be essential to establishing a more resilient and competitive economy.

While acknowledging recent positive developments, including improved inflation management, tourism recovery and signs of economic stabilisation, Wijeyaratne stressed the need to advance reforms aimed at strengthening fiscal discipline, enhancing productivity, improving competitiveness, developing human capital and reinforcing governance and institutional effectiveness.

He further highlighted the important role of professionals, businesses, academia and other stakeholders in contributing to evidence-based dialogue and supporting Sri Lanka’s journey towards a resilient, inclusive and sustainable economic future.

Delivering the keynote presentation, Dr. Harsha Aturupane provided a comprehensive assessment of Sri Lanka’s economic prospects within the broader context of global economic transformation. He argued that Sri Lanka functioned as a small open economy whose performance is significantly influenced by developments in the global marketplace. External factors could not be controlled, and the country must strengthen its domestic capacity and resilience to respond effectively to international economic shifts, he noted.

Tracing the evolution of global economic systems, Dr. Aturupane highlighted the transition from ideological divisions between state-controlled and market-oriented economies towards increasingly pragmatic approaches focused on growth, competitiveness and development. He noted that Sri Lanka’s own economic journey reflects a similar evolution, with contemporary policy debates now centred on practical solutions for sustainable economic progress.

The presentation also examined the transformative impact of globalisation. Dr. Aturupane observed that global economic integration had enabled several East Asian economies, including South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, to achieve remarkable economic advancement through export-led growth strategies. Sri Lanka similarly benefited from this process through the expansion of its apparel industry and increased integration into global value chains.

Turning to Sri Lanka’s recovery programme, Dr. Aturupane emphasised that the ongoing stabilisation process should be viewed as a national programme supported by the International Monetary Fund rather than solely as an IMF initiative. He observed that strong worker remittances, improved tourism earnings, enhanced government revenue mobilisation and prudent import management have contributed significantly to economic stabilisation.

Despite this progress, he cautioned that rebuilding foreign exchange reserves and meeting future debt obligations remain major challenges. He underscored the need to strengthen export performance, attract investment and generate sustainable foreign exchange earnings to ensure long-term economic resilience.

The discussion also focused on monetary stability, inflation management and exchange-rate policy. Dr. Aturupane stressed that maintaining price stability was fundamental to sustainable growth and household welfare, while sound monetary policy remains essential for preserving economic confidence.

Looking beyond stabilisation, he argued that Sri Lanka must transition towards a broader economic transformation agenda. Sustainable growth, he noted, will depend on expanding productive capacity through investment, technological advancement, innovation, skills development and structural reforms.

Among the key constraints identified was the high cost of energy, which continues to affect competitiveness and investment attractiveness. Dr. Aturupane emphasised the importance of improving efficiency and affordability within the energy sector to enhance Sri Lanka’s business environment.

He further highlighted the social dimensions of the crisis, noting the rise in poverty and economic vulnerability among households. Strengthening social protection systems and ensuring inclusive growth, he argued, must remain central components of the national development agenda.

Another critical challenge identified was Sri Lanka’s demographic transition. With an ageing population, outward migration and evolving labour market dynamics, the country is increasingly confronting labour shortages in several sectors. Dr. Aturupane suggested that greater automation, increased labour-force participation and strategic workforce planning would be necessary to address these emerging realities.

Concluding his presentation, he emphasised the need to improve governance, strengthen institutions, enhance competitiveness and create an enabling environment for private sector investment. Sri Lanka’s future success, he noted, will depend on its ability to move decisively beyond crisis management towards a development model founded on resilience, innovation, productivity and inclusive growth.

Dr. Achinthya Koswatta reiterated the importance of policy consistency and predictability in fostering investment and industrial development. She observed that frequent policy changes create uncertainty and discourage long-term investment decisions, whereas stable and coherent policy frameworks build confidence and support sustainable economic transformation.

Meanwhile, Anushan Kapilan highlighted the substantial progress achieved in restoring macroeconomic stability following the recent crisis. He noted significant improvements in fiscal performance, including increased government revenue, reduced reliance on debt financing and a historically low fiscal deficit.

He further observed that public debt levels are declining faster than anticipated, economic growth has exceeded expectations and inflation has been brought under control more rapidly than forecast. Nevertheless, he cautioned that the recovery remains uneven, particularly within the industrial sector and that many households have yet to experience a meaningful improvement in living standards.

The seminar was expertly coordinated by Eng. Chamil Edirimuni, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee, while the technical moderation and interactive discussion session were facilitated by Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee.

The event was attended by Tisara De Silva, President-Elect of the OPA, Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary, Past Presidents, members of the Executive Council, representatives of the General Forum and professionals representing a wide range of disciplines.

The seminar concluded with a vibrant exchange of ideas and perspectives, reaffirming the importance of evidence-based policy dialogue, institutional collaboration and collective national commitment in advancing Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and sustainable growth.

Features

Her roots run deep in Sri Lanka

Published

23 hours ago

2026/07/16

Sahan Weerasooriya

Samantha Kay: Now based in the UK Samantha’s biggest passion is helping people, especially women, build confidence and believe in themselves Today, her focus is on radio, podcasting and coaching women Whenever she visits Sri Lanka, she says she loves spending time on the beautiful south coast, especially Hikkaduwa and Mirissa She released a song with 90s music icon Angie Brown, which reached No. 9 in the UK Club Charts

Yes, for UK-based presenter and artiste Samantha Kay, home is where the heart – and the roots – are. And her roots run deep in Sri Lanka.

In an exclusive interview with The Island, Samantha says “I’m proud to be Sri Lankan. My mum is from Kandy and my dad is from Colombo, so Sri Lanka has always held a very special place in my heart.

“Whenever I visit Sri Lanka, I love spending time on the beautiful south coast, especially Hikkaduwa and Mirissa. It’s somewhere I always feel connected to my roots and completely at peace.”

Now living in Bournemouth, on the south coast of England, where, she says, she is lucky to be close to some of the UK’s most beautiful beaches, including the iconic Sandbanks, Samantha has built a career that refuses to fit into one box.

She is a radio presenter, podcast host, singer-songwriter, personal trainer and life coach.

“I genuinely love the variety because every role allows me to connect with people and, hopefully, make a positive difference in someone’s day.”

Of course, music has taken her far.

One of her proudest achievements, she says, was releasing a song with 90s music icon Angie Brown, which reached No. 9 in the UK Club Charts.

She also reached the final stages of The X Factor and performed at Wembley Stadium in front of thousands.

Beyond music, Samantha competed in bikini bodybuilding across the UK, winning several titles. “It taught me discipline, resilience and self-belief,” she recalls.

Today, her focus is on radio, podcasting and coaching women. Her podcast encourages people to live life on their own terms rather than feeling pressured to follow society’s expectations.

Says Samantha: “Whether someone is single, changing careers, travelling solo or simply trying to find their purpose, I want them to know that it’s never too late to create a life that feels authentic. If you’ve ever felt like you don’t fit into the box, maybe you were never meant to.”

Samantha Kay also spent a year in Dubai, performing at five-star hotels, including FIVE, and coaching at the iconic outdoor gym on Palm Jumeirah.

“I taught strength and conditioning classes, and hosted wellness retreats, combining my passion for music, health and inspiring others.”

However, with family matters calling her back to the UK, she made the choice to return. “Family comes first,” she says.

Looking ahead, Samantha plans to grow her radio and podcast work, release more music, and expand her wellness retreats.

“My biggest passion is helping people, especially women, build confidence and believe in themselves,” she says.

“Wherever my career takes me, I hope to continue inspiring others to live with courage, kindness and authenticity, while never forgetting my Sri Lankan roots.”