Features

International Meeting of Chief Justices and Senior Justices on

Published

4 weeks ago

2026/06/7

Thilina Walpola

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

Rio de Janeiro, 29 May 2026

I am deeply honoured to have been invited to participate in this International Meeting of Chief Justices and Senior Justices on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

It was in 1997 when, after about three decades in the legal profession, public service and academia, I was persuaded by a friend to come down from the ivory towers to join him in Berlin at Transparency International. That non-governmental organization, formed with assistance from the World Bank, was then in its formative years, and one of its principal objectives was to identify sectors that were vulnerable to corruption, and then to formulate strategies to combat such corruption.

Evidence of corruption

I had barely settled down at Transparency International when credible evidence began to surface of corruption in judicial systems in many countries across the continents. For example, a household survey in Bangladesh revealed that 63% of those involved in litigation in the lower courts had paid bribes to court officials, judges, and even to the opponents’ lawyer. A Commission of Inquiry in Tanzania documented numerous instances of court staff, magistrates, and prosecutors soliciting or accepting bribes.

People who participated in public perception surveys considered the judiciary to be only somewhat less corrupt that the police. In Argentina, 57% said they felt that corruption was the main problem with the judiciary. In Honduras, three out of four believed the judiciary was corrupt. In Costa Rica, 54% believed that judicial decisions were subject to external “pressures”. A UNDP funded study in Peru found that three of four penal cases were influenced by corruption. According to the Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, out of 48 countries covered in its annual report for 1999, judicial corruption was pervasive in 30 countries.

In the early 1970s, as a young lawyer serving as Secretary for Justice in the Government of Sri Lanka, I saw and experienced, with considerable unease and sadness, how some serving judges could demean themselves and the sanctity of their office, in the pursuit of preferential treatment from the executive branch of government. When some of these efforts proved to be rewarding, it was difficult not to become sceptical. It was time for the illusions of youth to disappear.

Corruption in the judiciary, therefore, extends beyond conventional bribery. An insidious form of corruption arises from the interaction between the judiciary and the executive, and from the relationship between the judiciary and the legal profession. For example, the political patronage through which a judge may have acquired his office, a promotion, an extension of service, preferential treatment, or the promise of employment after retirement, gives rise to corruption when the executive makes demands on such judge.

Similarly, when a family member regularly appears before a judge, or when a judge selectively ignores sentencing guidelines in cases in which a particular counsel appears, or statistics reveal a high rate of decisions in favour of the executive, the conduct of the judge is almost certain to raise, in the minds of others, the suspicion that the judge is susceptible to undue influence in the discharge of his judicial duties.

Judicial Independence

Independence has for long been regarded as a fundamental requirement for a national judiciary. What is often overlooked is that judicial independence is not a privilege of judicial office. It is an essential pre-requisite for the protection of the people. Judicial independence is essential because it is the judiciary that stands between the government and the people, determining whether actions taken by public officials comply with the standards laid down by law.

It is the judiciary that stands between the individual and the powerful corporate sector, which is increasingly becoming the primary employer and producer of national wealth. The question, therefore, began to be asked how real that protection is if the evidence surfacing was an accurate reflection of the state of the judiciary. Was judicial independence being traded for money or other benefits? Was adherence to the principle of judicial independence, by itself, sufficient to ensure the delivery of justice?

Judicial Accountability

It was against that background that my colleague at Transparency International, Jeremy Pope, and I convened a pilot workshop on “Strengthening Judicial Integrity” in October 1999 during the International Anti-Corruption Conference in Durban, South Africa. Its participants included judges, lawyers, legal academics, justice ministry officials, members of parliament, and human rights activists. From that workshop, which I had the privilege to chair, the message that came through clearly was the need to formulate and implement a concept of judicial accountability, without eroding the principle of judicial independence.

Accountability is a constitutional requirement in a democratic society. In such a society, every power holder, whether it be the legislature or the executive, is, in the final analysis, accountable to the people. Was there any reason why the judiciary, which is entrusted with the exercise of judicial power, should not, individually and collectively, be accountable for the due performance of the functions vested in it?

It had been argued that a judge is accountable only to the law and to the judge’s conscience. But, as Justice Michael Kirby, the longest serving member of the High Court of Australia, once observed, judges share the infirmities of other human beings. There is invariably, in most courts, a rude judge, a slow judge, an ignorant judge, a prejudiced judge, a sleeping judge, an absentee judge, and an eccentric judge.

The challenge, therefore, was to determine how the judiciary could be held to account in a manner that is consistent with the principle of judicial independence. How does one achieve the right balance between autonomy in decision-making and independence from external forces on the one hand, and accountability to the community on the other? My colleague and I agreed that these were issues that were best resolved by the judges themselves.

Judicial Integrity Group

For that purpose, I initiated discussions with eight Chief Justices from four African and four Asian countries. All of them responded positively to the suggestion that a small group be established to address the issue of judicial accountability. These eight jurisdictions – Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Karnataka State in India, Bangladesh and Nepal – shared a common judicial tradition. Justice Michael Kirby of Australia, agreed to be the rapporteur, and Dato Param Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, agreed to participate as an observer. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, designated the Chairperson of the UN Human Rights Committee and former Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhagwati, as her representative.

The choice of a chairperson to preside over a meeting of Chief Justices was a sensitive issue, but that was happily resolved when Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Vice-President of the International Court of Justice agreed to perform that task. At a crucial moment, Transparency International decided that the funds I had secured for the meeting would be more profitably spent on addressing corruption in the banking sector. Fortunately, the UN Centre for International Crime Prevention (now UNODC), which was about to launch a Global Programme Against Corruption, agreed enthusiastically to convene the preparatory meeting in Vienna in April 2000.

At that first meeting, the Judicial Integrity Group (as it is now known) agreed that judges (unlike ministers or civil servants) should be accountable to the community they serve through their absolute adherence to a set of judicial values. They believed that by adopting and enforcing appropriate standards of judicial conduct, the judiciary would be able to earn and retain the respect of the community. They agreed that this statement of core judicial values should be enforced by the judiciary without the intervention of the executive and legislative branches of government. They also believed that transparency at every critical stage of the judicial process will enable the community, especially through its legal academics, civil society and a free media, to judge the judges.

The Bangalore Draft

At the request of the Group, I prepared a draft statement of principles of judicial conduct, identifying Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence as being the core judicial values. I did not attempt to reinvent the wheel. Instead, I drew on rules and principles which were already articulated in national codes of conduct (wherever they existed) and in regional and international instruments. At its second meeting which was hosted by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka in Bangalore in 2001, that document was carefully scrutinized, analysed, criticised, revised, and finally adopted by the Group, and became known as the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct.

I should mention a major setback that occurred when arrangements were being made for the Bangalore Meeting. The new Italian head of UNODC withdrew support for the project, arguing that if there was corruption in the judiciary, it was a problem not for judges but for the police. Fortunately, we were able to convince the Department for International Development (DfID) in the United Kingdom that our project was one which they ought to support, and which they quite enthusiastically did for the next four years.

Over the next 20 months, the Bangalore Draft was widely disseminated among senior judges of both common law and civil law systems in over 75 countries. It was presented to, and discussed, at several judicial conferences. It was translated into the national languages of Central and Eastern European countries and reviewed by judges’ associations and supreme courts of these countries. The Consultative Council of European Judges, which functions under the Council of Europe and represented at that time the judicial systems of 30 countries, commissioned an expert study of the Bangalore Draft. Thereafter, at a meeting held in Strasbourg in June 2002, to which the UN Special Rapporteur and I were invited, it conducted a full and frank discussion from the perspective of the civil law system and then adopted a comprehensive report on specific provisions of the draft.

The Bangalore Principles

At the end of the consultation process, in the light of the comments and criticisms received, and with a view to ensuring that the final document faithfully reflected the position of civil law jurisdictions as well, the Bangalore Draft was revised. In November 2002, at a meeting held at the Peace Palace at The Hague, Netherlands – the seat of the International Court of Justice, the revised draft was placed before a Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices drawn from the civil law system, and at which Judges of the International Court of Justice also participated. The civil law jurisdictions represented were Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway and the Philippines. The Judges of the International Court of Justice present were drawn from Madagascar, Hungary, Germany, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom, Brazil, Egypt and the USA The final draft that emerged from that meeting – the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct – is the document that we have today.

In April 2003, the Bangalore Principles were annexed to the annual report presented to the 59^th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy. In a resolution which was unanimously adopted, the Bangalore Principles “were noted” and brought “to the attention of Member States, the relevant UN organs and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations for their consideration”.

Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

Following the adoption of the Bangalore Principles at the Hague Meeting, several other initiatives were launched, with the assistance of the Vienna-based UNODC. National surveys of court users and other stakeholders in the justice system were conducted in Nigeria, Uganda and Sri Lanka to identify systemic weaknesses. A Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees was drafted. Most significantly, with the assistance of GTZ, it was decided to draft a Commentary on the Bangalore Principles. It was a task which I undertook. The product was a 175-page document which also included a section on the cultural and religious traditions that underpin the contemporary concept of judicial integrity.

Endorsement by the United Nations

By 2006, UNODC was actively involved in efforts to secure the endorsement of the Bangalore Principles by the UN General Assembly. With that objective, it forwarded the Bangalore Principles to all the Member States of the UN, seeking their comments and observations. A resolution was co-sponsored by the Governments of Egypt, France, Germany, Nigeria and the Philippines, and submitted to the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. That resolution invited Member States to encourage their judiciaries to take into consideration the Bangalore Principles when developing rules with respect to the professional and ethical conduct of members of the judiciary; and requested UNODC to convene an open-ended inter-governmental expert group to review the Bangalore Principles and the Commentary, taking into account the views expressed and the revisions suggested by Member States. That resolution was unanimously adopted and was thereafter adopted without a vote by the UN Economic and Social Council whose annual report was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly later that year.

In March 2007, UNODC convened the meeting of the Inter-Governmental Expert Group consisting of over a hundred participants. At that two-day meeting, held in Vienna and presided over by Judge Weeramantry and Chief Justice Pius Langa of South Africa, the draft commentary was considered in detail and amendments were agreed upon. The Commentary on the Bangalore Principles was thereafter published by UNODC in the official UN languages, and has since been re-published by a few national judiciaries in their own languages.

In 2010, the Judicial Integrity Group met in Lusaka, on the invitation of the Chief Justice of Zambia, and agreed on Measures for the Effective Implementation of the Bangalore Principles. I had the opportunity of incorporating these Measures in the UNODC publication An Implementation Guide and Evaluative Framework in respect of Article 11 of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). That Article imposes an obligation on states parties to take measures to strengthen judicial integrity, and cites a code of judicial conduct as one such measure.

Meanwhile, UNODC has launched a Global Judicial Integrity Network to promote the implementation of the Bangalore Principles and Article 11 of UNCAC. It is an initiative that seeks to provide capacity-building support, advisory services, tools, networking opportunities and other relevant resources to national judiciaries.

Another significant instrument which complements the Bangalore Principles is the Istanbul Declaration on Transparency in the Judicial Process which I had the pleasure of preparing at the request of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey. It was reviewed and approved at three conferences of Chief Justices of the Asian-Pacific region, the Balkan region, and finally from North and South America, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa.

Finally, in 2016, a 16-year journey ended when the United Nations formally included the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct in its Compendium of UN Standards and Norms relating to the Administration of Justice.

A quarter century later

It is now 24 years since the Bangalore Principles were adopted, and almost 20 years since the Commentary was published. During this period, there have been several technological and social developments that impact on judicial conduct.

= It has been questioned whether the six judicial values are exhaustive, or whether there are others as well. We are now considering whether “courage” and “empathy” ought to be recognised as additional values.

= It has been suggested that some serious social issues, such as sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and “sextortion” have not been adequately addressed or not at all.

= The use of social media by judges can impact on judicial integrity and public confidence in the judiciary. Therefore, should their use be regulated, and if so, to what extent?

= While artificial intelligence may contribute to the improvement of access to justice and case-management, what steps are necessary to ensure that justice is not thereby dehumanized?

= Should a judge enjoy personal immunity from civil suit for conduct in the exercise of a judicial function, even if it can be established that the judge has acted mala fide?

= Should post-retirement employment of judges be regulated?

I hope this Conference will be able to address these sensitive issues.

Judicial values are eternal

In conclusion, I wish to highlight two matters. The first is to emphasize that the strength and, indeed, the legitimacy of the Bangalore Principles and related instruments are derived from the fact that they were crafted by judges, based on their own experience as judges and are intended to be utilized by judges who form the core of the justice system.

Finally, I wish to note what a humbling experience it was for me, when preparing the draft Principles, and thereafter the draft Commentary, to learn that these core judicial values and principles and even detailed statements of their applicability were to be found –

in the texts of ancient Egypt and in Hindu Law in or around 1500 BC;
in Buddhist philosophy in 500 BC;
in the Twelve Tables of Rome in 450 BC (which contains the injunction that “The setting of the sun shall be the extreme limit of time within which a judge must render his decision”);
in Chinese law around 312 BC;
in the legal systems that flourished in Africa at the same time as they did in Greece and Rome;
in the writings of Jewish scholars in or about the 12^th century AD;
in the teachings in the Old Testament; and,
in very specific and comprehensive terms, in Islamic Law.

The judicial values are not only global; they are also eternal.

Keynote Address:
A Brief History of the Bangalore Principles
Dr Nihal Jayawickrama
Coordinator and Rapporteur of the Judicial Integrity Group

All News Advertisement

Features

The significance of “Control” in foreign relations

Published

9 hours ago

2026/07/3

Thilina Walpola

US Assistant Secretary of State South and Central Asian Affairs, Paul Kapur, Deputy Defence Minister Aruna Jayaskera, and Navy Commande Vice Admiral Kanchana Banagoda and others aboard SLNS Gajabahu.

Foreign Relations are all about “Control” particularly in the context of Relations between Major Powers such as the USA, China and India and small sovereign States such as Sri Lanka. While in the case of such relations, benefits to both parties are inevitable, the need to do so is invariably driven by the national interests of the Major Powers because their interests far outweigh those of small States. This mismatch of interests is what calls for “Control” of relations by Major Powers

The advice to Sri Lanka by Foreign Relations experts thus far has been to balance challenges arising from such Relations, not realising that the compulsions driven by the interests of Major Powers are such that balancing by itself does not have the needed capabilities to overcome the consequences arising from Major Power Rivalries; a fact evidenced by the recent Middle East war.

For instance, the need for the USA to strengthen the capabilities of the Sri Lankan Navy is driven by the strategic location of Sri Lanka since it is the gateway to the Indo-Pacific. Notwithstanding such motivations, it cannot be denied that the infrastructure provided to Sri Lanka’s Navy was handy to meet internal challenges as it was during the final stages of the Armed Conflict to destroy arsenals of the LTTE out at sea and the capacity to meet both external and internal threats to and within Sri Lanka.

Similarly, one of China’s primary interests is its Belt and Road Initiative. Towards this end, China has established a solid foot print in Sri Lanka by building and owning solid infrastructure projects for 99 years and more, if it is in China’s interest. However, although benefits from such projects cannot be denied, the open question is whether their scale was established to suit China’s interests or sought by Sri Lanka to suit Sri Lanka’s interests. For instance, the offer to build a 200,000 barrels a day Refinery by Sinopec of China has more to do with serving China’s interests, in view of the decision by the Sri Lankan Government to expand the Refinery at Sapugaskanda to 100,000 barrels a day.

In the case of India, the issues are more complex arising from Sri Lanka’s proximity to India, the cultural and historical heritage shared by both and the presence of the Tamil community in both countries. Consequently, India is extremely conscious of the need to keep a sharp eye and “Control” developments taking place in Sri Lanka in respect of Sri Lanka’s relations with Major Powers. This concern is driven by the notion that the territorial security of India is dependent on Sri Lanka’s Relations with Major Powers; a concern that arises from India’s past territorial history where the territory of India was transformed from a motley group of Princely States into one unified sub-continent and then partitioned into two Nation States under the British Raj. Consequently, the present territory of India has been in existence only since its independence from Colonial Rule in 1947. Hence, the fear of history repeating itself is driven by internal compulsions and by external interventions.

US – SRI LANKA RELATIONS

Against the background of Geopolitical interests presented above, Sri Lanka adopted the Policy of Neutrality in 2019 and this Government continues to exercise and live by its Internationally recognised principles, as it did when Sri Lanka denied landing rights to US Aircraft during the Middle East conflict. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister stated that Sri Lanka was “always neutral” when he met the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs to convey Sri Lanka’s appreciation for the assistance rendered to procure fuel during the Middle East crisis and for the maritime vessels and aircraft gifted to Sri Lanka (Daily News, June 23, 2026).

In the meantime, The Island has reported that the “US declares SLN its Indo-Pacific Partner” (June 25, 2026). A statement issued by the US Embassy in Colombo quotes the Assistant Secretary of State as having stated: “Today, we announced the delivery of US satellite communication technology to the Sri Lankan Navy, our Indo-Pacific partner: This secure, real-time connection—representing a transformational upgrade for the Sri Lankan Navy-– will be available aboard their entire fleet of offshore patrol vessels…” (Ibid).

There is no doubt whatsoever that these assets would collectively boost the capabilities of the SL Navy to “strengthen maritime domain awareness, improve operational coordination, support emergency response, help interdict vessels engaged in illicit trafficking etc.” (Ibid). However, the unilateral declaration by US that the SL Navy is a “Indo-Pacific Partner” of the US has NO validity unless such a declaration has the approval of the SL Government. Furthermore, such an approval by the SL Government would compromise its Policy of Neutrality to which the country has pledged.

Therefore, the declaration should be accompanied with a caveat, that being, that the partnership should NOT extend to the entirety of the Indo-Pacific but be limited to Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEC). It is only then that the SL Government is Internationally entitled to exercise its rights as a Neutral State, namely, to protect its territory under the UN Law of the Sea. Furthermore, considering the extent of Sri Lanka’s EEC in relation to the extent of the Indian Ocean, the Partnership would be proportionate.

CHINA – SRI LANKA RELATIONS

China’s interest is to consolidate its interests in its Belt and Road Initiative. Towards this end it has attempted to exercise “Control” over Sri Lanka by offering infrastructure projects of a scale that benefits China rather than Sri Lanka as evidenced by the example of the offer by Sinopec Refinery cited above. This example demonstrate that Sri Lanka should be faulted for accepting projects offered without question and when questioned, based on local evaluations of scale to meet Sri Lankan needs as in the case of the existing Refinery at Sapugaskanda, the scale of projects become significantly less. The lesson to be learnt from this experience is that no project offered should be accepted without question in respect of its suitability to Sri Lanka in all respects, if Sri Lanka is not to become a victim of self-inflicted debt traps.

INDIA –SRI LANKA RELATIONS

How India “Controls” Sri Lanka is by making Sri Lanka politically and economically vulnerable and dependent on India, not only through physical connectivity, but also by being a handmaiden in internal political arrangements where power is devolved to Provinces that are a threat to Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity (13^th Amendment) and also by focusing development that benefit the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. The end result is to keep relations between communities in Sri Lanka on the “boil”, much against the interests of Sri Lanka to function as a united Nation State.

The proposal to connect Sri Lanka with India with under-water pipelines to transfer petroleum products from the Middle East and Power Grids would make Sri Lanka vulnerable and dependent on India as Germany was with Natural Gas from Russia when Nord-Stream I and II were sabotaged. Similarly, the road access through a Land Bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka would legalize access between the two countries that today takes place illegally because of the disparity in wages and livelihoods.

Despite such possible outcomes, there is a concerted effort by individuals and a body of NGOs who are of the opinion that it is in the best interests of Sri Lanka for Sri Lanka to hitch its wagons to the rising star of India. Others are grateful to India as the first responder to Sri Lanka at times of need, mindless of the weekly destruction of Sri Lanka’s marine resources etc. caused by thousands of fishing boats from India resorting to illegal fishing practices whose value over the years are beyond assessment.

CONCLUSIION

The reason for the recent conflict in the Middle East is all about “Control” of Nation States by Major Powers in pursuit of their Geopolitical interests. The need to “Control” Sri Lanka by the US is because of Sri Lanka’s location to the Indo-Pacific and by China because Sri Lanka is a vital link to its Belt and Road Initiative. On the other hand, Relations with India are influenced and guided by India’s obsession with the sustainability of its territorial integrity because that is what makes India a Major Power. The survival of Sri Lanka in such a complex background depends on how astutely Sri Lanka protects its Policy of Neutrality.

By Neville Ladduwahetty

Features

“Sir”: A prefix or a suffix in Sri Lanka?

Published

9 hours ago

2026/07/3

Thilina Walpola

A file picture of King Charles making Sir Stephen Hough a Knight Bachelor at Windsor Castle.

The word “Sir” is classically and linguistically associated with Great Britain and His Majesty’s English Language. As an esteemed prefix, it generally refers to a Knight, but very strictly speaking, that is perhaps a rather narrow and restricted synonym. While a Knight of the British Empire is the most common type of knight people encounter today, Great Britain actually has several different orders of knighthood, as well as an ancient rank that does not belong to any such order at all.

When someone is dubbed a knight in Britain and referred to as “Sir” X, Y or Z, they generally fall into one of three categories. The first is a Knight Bachelor, undoubtedly the oldest rank. This is the most common form of knighthood awarded for public service, arts, or science. In that context, one should think of Sir Elton John, Sir Paul McCartney, or Sir Ian McKellen. It is not a part of an explicit “Order”, like that of the British Empire. It is the oldest mechanical form of knighthood, dating back to the 13th century under King Henry III. The recipients are simply styled as Sir, followed by the first name, such as Sir Ian, without any post-nominal letters like KBE or OBE attached to the end of their name.

The second is a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE). This is a specific group, established relatively recently in 1917 by King George V, to fill a gap for rewarding civilian and military effort during World War I. To qualify to be called “Sir” within this specific order, a man must be appointed as a Knight Commander (KBE) or a Knight Grand Cross (GBE).

The third is a group of Chivalric Orders, the so-called Elite and Ancient Orders. Several highly exclusive, ancient orders of knighthood sit much higher in precedence than the Order of the British Empire. These include the Most Noble Order of the Garter, the pinnacle of British honours founded in 1348, and scrupulously limited to the Monarch, the Prince of Wales, and only 24 other companion members. Then there is the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, the highest chivalric honour in Scotland. The last of this group is the Most Honourable Order of the Bath; typically awarded to high-ranking military officers and senior civil servants.

The Summary Rule of this entire scenario is that every Knight of the British Empire (KBE) is a British Knight, but not every British Knight is a Knight of the British Empire. If you see a modern British knight who does not have military or diplomatic ties, odds are high that they are actually a Knight Bachelor.

With reference to the title of this presentation, now for the flip side of this, as we see things in our region of the globe. In Great Britain, it is the standard form of address to refer to a Knight as Sir John, Sir Ian etc. However, in Sri Lanka, as well as in the Indian sub-continent, very often people use the word “Sir” as a suffix or a postfix to honour someone and frequently use “X Sir”; the name followed by the word “Sir” as a suffix or postfix.

It is a fascinating linguistic oddity, and Sri Lanka is definitely not alone in this, and most definitely, we are second to none in that outlook. While using “Sir” as a suffix or postfix (e. g., De Silva Sir, Nihal Sir) completely cartwheels over the standard British etiquette, where “Sir” must strictly prefix a first name. This charming practice of using it as a suffix is actually widespread across South Asia and parts of Southeast Asia. It is a classic example of dialectal crossbreeding, where local grammatical structures and cultural norms go to the extent of rewriting even the rules of the standard English as a language.

In a very broad sense, this phenomenon is very definitely seen in the Indian Subcontinent (E.g. Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan). This is arguably where the “Name + Sir” phenomenon is largest and perhaps even the strongest. Across Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh, you will constantly hear people refer to superiors, teachers, or public figures as Karu Sir, Vijay Sir, Sachin Sir, Shahrukh Sir, or Ahmad Sir, etc.

Then there is the Indian “Ji” Factor: In Indian languages like Hindi or Punjabi, it is a strict cultural taboo to call an elder or a superior by their bare name. People naturally append the respectful suffix “Ji” (e. g., Gandhi-ji, Sharma-ji). It is then no surprise at all that when switching to English, the Indian mind seamlessly swaps the local suffix Ji for the English honorific Sir, thereby turning Vijay-ji into Vijay Sir.

In Hong Kong, a very specific variation of this exists within the police force and civil service. Influenced by decades of British administration, mixed with Cantonese naming customs, junior officers and the public address superiors by their surname followed by “Sir”, such as “Wong-Sir” or “Chan-Sir“. There is even a universal colloquial generic term, “Ah-Sir“, used commonly to address male police officers or teachers.

In the Philippines, while the syntax is slightly different, the sheer density of “Sir/Madam, Ma’am” usage matches that of Sri Lanka. Filipinos deeply value hierarchical courtesy. While they might say “Sir Jason“, it is incredibly common to use “Sir” almost like a pronoun or a mid-sentence suffix punctuation mark when addressing superiors, bosses, or clients, to ensure that respect is suitably maintained conscientiously.

The mismatch between British English and South/Southeast Asian English comes down to how different native cultures view status and intimacy. In South Asia, especially in Sri Lanka, there is the Linguistic Tradition of the suffix, where an extension in the nation’s own language is inserted into a word to enhance its status. In languages like Sinhala (-thuma / –mahathmaya), in Tamil (-ayyah / –avargal), and in Hindi (-ji), respect is always attached to the end of a name. It simply means that forcefully bringing a sleek word that implies social deference to the front, like Sir John, feels syntactically peculiar or even inappropriate to a native speaker of these local languages.

The “First Name Dilemma” is another type of rather quaint occurrence. In the West, calling your boss simply “John” is seen as a gesture that is egalitarian, free and open. In South Asia, calling an elder or superior by their first name feels somewhat jarringly rude. Conversely, using just “Mr Perera” can also feel too cold, official and even distant. “Perera Sir” or “Silva Sir” strikes the perfect culturally mitigatory concession, as it maintains a warm, personal connection by using the surname while also overtly and safely conveying a layer of professional public respect by adding the word “Sir” as a suffix or a postfix.

Yet for all that, it is worth noting that fundamentally, all languages are symbolic expressions of human thought and human intelligence. Whether expressed as spoken, written or sign language, all dialects are means of human communication. The type of words like “Sir” that we use in the English Language and the real context in which they are used indicate our thoughts in our human intellect. When they are used appropriately, they reflect our commitment to uninhibited respect and even admiration. While the British people and even their Monarch might feel quite a bit confused to hear someone called “Perera Sir”, right across Sri Lanka and its neighbouring nations. Yet for all that, it is simply the most natural and fusion technique to bridge and integrate traditional deference and admiration with modern expressive English.

by Dr B. J. C. Perera
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow,
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
An independent freelance correspondent.

Features

The Murder Room

Published

9 hours ago

2026/07/3

Thilina Walpola

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 8

The Murder Room gets its title from a room of that name in a museum dedicated to Victorian memorabilia, including famous murders, which are featured in that room. But the first murder in the story occurs outside, when one of the trustees, who had been against renewing the lease of the building – which would have meant the museum having to close – is set on fire when he comes to the museum late one evening to pick up the car in which he went away for weekends. This was a regular habit, and the murderer had obviously lain in wait, with a can of petrol, and set him on fire.

James

I took several books with me when I went to England earlier this year, but as usual I read hardly any of them, finding enough and more of interest in the shelves of those I stayed with. My first stop was at New College, where, as on several previous occasions I stayed in what is known as the Bishop’s Room, on the topmost storey of the Warden’s Lodgings. Sadly, I shall not stay there again, for my friend who has been Warden there for a decade now, Miles Young, retires this year.

The bookshelves there have much of interest though on the last couple of occasions I have concentrated on the detective stories, which Miles says are not his, but came with the house. The second I read this time was by the generally workmanlike P. D. James, whose Adam Dalgliesh is in the long line of whimsical but efficient detectives that has Hercule Poirot at its head. Though I had not been impressed by the one novel I read, featuring James’ female detective, Dalgliesh, I liked it, and this novel confirmed my affection.

The Murder Room

gets its title from a room of that name in a museum dedicated to Victorian memorabilia, including famous murders, which are featured in that room. But the first murder in the story occurs outside, when one of the trustees, who had been against renewing the lease of the building – which would have meant the museum having to close – is set on fire when he comes to the museum late one evening to pick up the car in which he went away for weekends. This was a regular habit, and the murderer had obviously lain in wait, with a can of petrol, and set him on fire.

The other two trustees, his brother and his sister, obviously benefited from his death, for they promptly renewed the lease. The employees of the museum also clearly benefited, for they had all found some sort of refuge here. These included the caretaker/cleaner, who lived in a cottage on the premises, a manager who was unpaid but used the place for his research, the receptionist, who also looked after the flat at the museum which was used by the sister, and two volunteers plus a gardener’s boy.

The caretaker, Tally, came across the fire before discovery had been intended, for an evening class everyone knew she went to on Fridays had been cancelled. On her way in she was knocked off her bicycle by a speeding car, the driver of which stopped to make sure she was safe, before speeding off again. She manages then to summon everyone else, including Dalgliesh, who had visited the museum for the first time a few days earlier, brought by a friend who relished its strange attractions.

The museum has to be closed for a few days while investigations are carried out, but in the course of them the friend brings some transatlantic visitors, and when they are in the Murder Room a chest (in which a body had been supposed to have been hidden in Victorian times) is opened, and a body found there. That murder, the autopsy indicated, had taken place around the time of the first murder.

The body was that of a girl who had attended a finishing school part-owned by the Dupayne sister. When Tally, by chance, sees the man who had knocked her down, and identifies him as a Lord who was known for his philanthropy, Dalgliesh realises that there are wheels within wheels here. The Lord confesses that he belonged to a group that met for promiscuous sex in the flat, and that he had planned to meet the girl there but she had not turned up.

Lord Martlesham, when the girl failed to appear, thought he should get away after the fire broke out. It was then that he had bumped into Tally, and his stopping to make sure she was all right indicated that he could not have been the murderer. Dalgliesh then deduced that the murderer had seen the girl at the window of the murder room, from which she must have seen the preparations for the murder. That was why she too had been killed.

Dalgliesh then has a fair idea of who the murderer was, but in waiting for proof, he leaves room for yet another murder to happen. For Tally, who had been mulling over something said on the night of the murder, asking about the petrol that caused the fire, realized that she had not mentioned petrol herself. This happened on her way back to her cottage, and not having a phone herself she goes into the museum to call, and then gets back to her cottage and locks herself in.

But then she hears her cat howling and goes out to find him strung up. She cuts him down, but when she goes back to the cottage the murderer is waiting and knocks her down. That happens in the section called The Third Victim, but this is in fact a boy on a motorbike knocked down by the speeding car of the escaping murderer. So Dalgliesh is able to effect an arrest when he turns up as summoned, and fortunately is in time to resuscitate Tally and send her to hospital.

The reason for the murder and the identity of its perpetrator are then fairly straightforward, though the background to the second murder introduces an element of loose living that contrasts with the Victorian age, or at least the image it projected – undercut though that is by the murders highlighted in the Murder Room with their sexual overtones.

And there is another louche element in the adventures of the gardener’s boy, who lives with a Major who is homosexual, though he declares, truthfully it seems, that he was not attracted at all to the boy but had given him shelter because of his vulnerability. He is generally charming, but capable of rages, in one of which he knocked down the major, though he was forgiven. He had taken shelter with Tally, who was fond of him but decided she preferred to live alone, which was why she had sent him away the day before she was attacked.

The murdered brother was a psychiatrist, and it turns out that the mysterious weekends he spent away from his London home were spent at country inns, where he took long walks to clear his mind of the demons his practice kept bringing into it. His profession also contributed to his death, in addition to his standing in the way of the museum continuing to exist, for one of his patients, connected to the murderer, had set fire to herself.

Solid plotting, with all the loose ends tied up, of incidents and the bizarre cast of characters.