Features
My continuing battle against the Tea Hub proposal that would have debased pure Ceylon Tea
Multinationals have long reduced the content of Ceylon tea in packs branded as such
(Excerpted from the autobiography of Merrill J. Fernando)
The ruthless philosophy of the multinational packer and retail supplier is to buy low and sell high in mass markets in which the consumer, through relentless advertising and promotion, has been compelled to accept a well-packaged mediocrity masquerading as excellence. The intrinsic value of a product such as Pure Ceylon Tea and its inherent value proposition is subordinated to profit. Concepts such as genuine product purity and uniqueness of origin have no place in such a world. Such values do not belong in the base culture of mass-marketing of bland, homogeneous products.
The importation of cheap tea from multiple origins would immediately result in the discounting, at the Colombo Auction, of equivalent grades produced in this country, which would invariably be of a higher value than the import. In fact, the cost of any cheap imported tea would be well below our national cost of production, which, for a number of well known reasons, is the highest in the world.
A glut of such low-priced imported tea would depress auction prices overall and adversely impact the grower and producer, who are already burdened by high production costs and diminishing land and worker productivity. In the meantime, the cheap blend, with its desirability enhanced by the legend ‘packed in Sri Lanka/Ceylon,’ will be perceived as genuine Ceylon Tea by the overseas consumer. That perception will cause irreparable damage to the image of Pure Ceylon Tea and, also, to the exporter of the genuine product.
Despite the many abuses it has been subject to over the years, at the hands of multinationals and other traders, who have no respect for either purity or origins, Ceylon Tea is not a commodity as other teas are. Pure Ceylon Tea, of itself and in itself, is a brand and a specialty in the eyes of the consumer. There is no other tea in the world which is recognized internationally by the country of its origin like Ceylon Tea; nor is any other country globally identified by the tea it produces like Sri Lanka/Ceylon.
Up to about 20 years ago, Ceylon Tea was promoted and marketed on that unique value proposition and that memory still lingers in the minds of the older, middle-aged consumer. It was that memory of quality which ensured the success of Dilmah in Australia, despite it being priced well above its competing brands produced by the big multinationals.
Historically, though, commoditization has been the strategy of the trader, the promotion of the brand on the strength of the quality image of Ceylon Tea and then gradually reducing the latter component, thus deluding the overseas consumer and impoverishing the local farmer. Consumers who purchase blindly on brand loyalty do not perceive the gradual erosion in the quality of the cup of tea they drink every day. They will continue to patronize the debased product as a conditioned reflex to compelling advertising and promotion.
A recent example of the strategy described above is the fate of the Russian market, first serviced by our own traders, who, instead of developing own labels when the opportunity arose, chose the easy path and became servitors of the foreign label. The end result was an ignominious exit from the market when the Russian buyer, having established market share on the strength of Ceylon Tea, took his business elsewhere or established his own packing plants in Russia itself.
Value addition, branding, and marketing have, for long, been the weakest features in our export field. Despite all their arguments to the contrary, increasing the total value of our exports using cheap imported tea is not practically possible. The immediate result would be the decline of the export price of Pure Ceylon Tea.
Value-added tea is already being exported at prices ranging from Rs. 600 per kg to Rs. 1,100 per kg. The availability of Ceylon Tea at those prices, automatically weakens the argument for importation of cheap tea, unless the purpose is simply to devalue the export price.
It is also most unlikely that global players in the tea trade, packing in-market, using cheap, multi-origin tea, would rush to Sri Lanka to establish packing centres with the establishment of a Tea Hub. We are far removed from the main markets of the global packers and the only inducements for them to set up operations in Sri Lanka would be the availability of low-cost labour and cheap tea, at rock-bottom prices, the margin savings overriding other disadvantages, such as additional shipping and distribution costs. Such operators will not buy the high-priced Ceylon Tea, unless the proposed massive influx of imported tea drives the local auction prices down to the floor! Is it necessary to emphasize that such a scenario would be the death knell for the local producer?
Unacceptable comparisons, Garment Sector vs. Tea Export Industry
Blending hubs such as Dubai and Rotterdam, examples frequently used by the Tea Hub proponents as ideal models for replication, cannot be equated with Sri Lanka, which is a major producer. Such hubs are commercial centers which facilitate the recycling of products from multiple origins and owe no allegiance to producing countries.
As for the much-touted increase in employment generated by a Tea Hub, it is a myth, as any new blending or packing plant would be fully automated and designed specifically to minimize manual labour. In an industrialized world relentlessly driving towards robotization of processes, manpower is the first designated casualty in any new venture.
The loss of traditional markets for our tea has not been due to price concerns, but largely due to our inadequacies in value addition, marketing, and promotion. The emergence of ‘Dilmah’ as a premier product in Australia and New Zealand, despite being much higher in price than the corresponding products from large multinationals, is proof of the effectiveness of product promotion on the intrinsic strengths of the product itself. It completely negates the argument that multi-origin, cheap blends will override the uniqueness of Pure Ceylon Tea on cost alone.
Our tea has for long been acclaimed as the ‘cleanest tea in the world,’ meeting the Minimum Residue Levels (MRL) stipulated by some of the most demanding markets in the world, such as Japan. The importation of cheap tea from multiple origins, of unregulated hygiene and cleanliness standards, would immediately defile that image irrevocably.
The garment sector in Sri Lanka and the establishment of special Free Trade Zones (FTZs) have been quoted by the TEA (Tea Export Association) as successful examples of special manufacturing enclaves, equivalent to the proposed Tea Hub. In my view those are most inappropriate comparisons, as unacceptable as a ‘chalk and cheese’ equivalent.
The apparel industry exists almost entirely for the servicing of foreign labels, with 95% of the components being imported, whilst, locally, we simply supply the labor. It is. essentially, a massive labor- intensive operation, dedicated to the concept of maximum production at the lowest cost, but embellished with attractive labels, supported by cutting-edge technology, best manufacturing practices, and compliance with international standards, process hygiene and worker safety.
I am not, even for one moment, belittling the success of the garment industry in Sri Lanka, but those are the realities. Sri Lankans do not own the garment industry and are almost entirely dependent on foreign label patronage for continued existence. In that respect alone, the garment industry in Sri Lanka is very similar to the foreign label service provided by Sri Lankan traders to multi-national tea packers. The establishment of a Tea Hub will relegate our tea industry to that unattractive niche. As long as we are in control of the production of the raw material, we have the power to strategize how and where we sell it and at what price.
The establishment of FTZs was to ensure that the finished product, or the raw material, is not leaked out to local markets. As opposed to that, in the plantation industry, possibly over 95% of the raw material and other components are generated locally. It is a totally home-grown industry where the raw material, in its totality, is produced within.
There are only two sustainable ways of increasing the export value of our tea. One is to improve our land and labour productivity and increase annual production and, thus, send more tea to the auction annually. Another is to increase value addition at source to locally-owned brands, thus enhancing the export price. In fact, simply increasing production without a parallel strategy for adding value is also counterproductive.
Auction prices are determined by supply/ demand dynamics which are outside the producers’ area of control and a combination of both volume and quality will not ensure a sustainable revenue increase. Finally, value addition at source to a good quality finished product, namely ‘Pure Ceylon Tea,’ is the surest method of increasing earnings.
Every kilo of tea produced in Ceylon sells at premium prices and, irrespective of other market dynamics, is still considered as a benchmark for overall quality. In such a scenario, the only objective of devaluing it would be for personal gain, in order to compete with the mass-selling, low-priced, multinational trader.
Example of exploitation
The multinational traders’ exploitative strategy in regard to third world products is best illustrated by coffee, grown in countries such as Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia, Ethiopia, Uganda, and many other countries in Africa. In all the countries where coffee is grown in volume, the per capita income of the farmer is a fraction of that of an average farmer in a developed country and miniscule in comparison to the earnings of the average coffee consumer in the West.
Colvin R. de Silva, as Minister of Plantations, was one of the first politicians to publicly and unequivocally articulate this unacceptable disparity. For every plastic cup of coffee sold for USD 3-4 in affluent societies, the farmer in Africa gets five cents. From a kilogramme of coffee sold at USD 2.75, 110 cups can be brewed, translating to a profit margin of over USD 300 for those in between the poor farmer and the rich consumer.
The story of the tea trade in the hands of the multinational tea trader is no different and the cheapening of Ceylon Tea by importing, blending, and re-exporting will contribute further to that unacceptable social and economic disequilibrium.
It is a cardinal rule of all major packers – multinationals – never to purchase their material from one source or origin. Invariably they operate through two or more suppliers. However, because of the excellent and longstanding quality proposition of Ceylon Tea and the confidence we inspired in all the buyers of the major retailers, for many decades Ceylon Tea used to be, if not the major component, the most important ingredient of multinational packs.
Disappointing indications
During a previous Government’s term, the then Finance Minister, Ravi Karunanayake, deluded by the facile arguments of the Tea Hub proponents, facilitated the importation of tea in one of his budgets.
However, my protests against this provision, supported by the then Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, resulted in its removal.
I must also admit to being disappointed by the stance of the Planters’ Association, in regard to the issue of the Tea Hub. I recall a strongly-worded press statement (Daily FT, May 17, 2012), in which the PA declared its opposition to the concept. However, as the umbrella body which primarily represents producer interests, I would have expected it to come out far more strongly, vocally, and actively, against an initiative with the very obvious potential to cause serious damage producer.
Sometime in March 2012, immediately after a meeting of the anvil, chaired by me, certain members of the Tea Council met then Plantations Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe, and advised him that they would boycott future meetings of the Council chaired by me if I continued to oppose the TEA proposals regarding importation of tea. However, they did not breathe a word about this matter at the meeting itself, though that was the most obvious forum for the issue to have been discussed.
Frankly, I was disgusted by the base conduct of those exporters and, by my letter of March 30, 2012, addressed to Minister Samarasinghe, I resigned from the chairmanship of the Council. In my letter I also clearly stated the reasons for my resignation. The Minister accepted it and appointed Tyeab Akberally, Vice Chairman, to the position I relinquished.
The Tea Council was set up in 1989, under the direction of the then Minister of Plantations, Gamini Dissanayake. Its core purpose was resolving the many problems of the entire industry, in a manner that would benefit the industry in its totality; the plantation worker, the producer, the broker, and the exporter, all included. The very submission of a proposal which only addressed the interests of the exporter, to the obvious detriment of all other stakeholders, was in conflict with the remit of the Council.
Dr. P. B. Jayasundera, then Secretary to the Treasury, has always been a strong opponent of the Tea Hub concept. Addressing the CTTA’s 118th Annual General Meeting in late 2012, ironically flanked at the head table by a couple of ardent proponents of the Tea Hub concept, Dr. Jayasundera stated quite unequivocally that the only manner in which the export earnings from tea could be increased was by “creating a new development framework and promoting Ceylon Tea at a premium, setting aside the idea of making the country a Tea Hub”.
Basically, what Dr. Jayasundera supported was to position Sri Lanka as an exclusive centre for value addition to Pure Ceylon Tea and not to convert it to a trading platform for tea from any and every origin.
Bleak certainties
To any impartial observer, it would be clear that the TEA call for liberalization of imports was driven by the sense of insecurity, generated by the rapidly-diminishing profit margins of the proponents. It is a proposal which reflects, with embarrassing clarity, the mindset of the timid exporter and his submission to foreign label pressure. In my many arguments against the Hub, I have frequently requested its supporters to take a moment to consider why a few exporters from Sri Lanka sell comfortably at USD 10 FOB per kilo, whilst others scramble at the bottom, selling at USD 3 per kilo.
All the multinationals operating in Sri Lanka are now manned entirely by Sri Lankans and the industry’s reliance on the former to market our tea should be minimal. However, I am both baffled and saddened by the still very evident orientation and adherence within the industry to archaic multinational thinking and strategy.
In their hunger for short-term gain, the proponents of the Tea Hub are prepared to sacrifice the long-term potential of Pure Ceylon Tea, as well as consign the hundreds of thousands of low-income earners at the producers’ end to permanent impoverishment. In their pursuit of immediate and short term survival, they are prepared to surrender every natural advantage in ‘Pure Ceylon Tea’. The reality is that it is the locally-owned brands exporting exclusively ‘Pure Ceylon Tea,’ which are the flag bearers of the national product on the global stage.
In total, about 12% of this country’s population is dependent, either directly or indirectly, on the plantation economy. Of that proportion, about 90% toil at the producers’ end; plantation workers and residents, small-holders, their dependents, ancillary service suppliers, bought leaf manufacturers, and so on. A decline in the Colombo tea prices, arising from cheap imports, would result in a permanent adverse impact on the lives of this multitude, whilst temporarily enriching a minuscule proportion at the exporters’ end.
Pure Ceylon Tea was, and still is, this country’s greatest asset. It’s a primary home-grown product and identifies Ceylon/Sri Lanka globally. Its real value and significance have either been misinterpreted by successive governments, and many of our local traders, but fully exploited by the multinational who understood its actual worth. Through Ceylon Tea, the country has a product which can stand alone and compete successfully against any tea grown or manufactured in any other country. The maximization of its inherent value proposition simply requires vision, dedication, and integrity of purpose.
For over a century we have permitted Ceylon Tea, a valuable and attractive ‘finished product’ with enormous potential to this country, to be exported by multinational companies to other countries as a ‘raw material’. The importing countries debase its natural quality by blending with inferior tea from other origins, whilst reducing its cost and, with pretty packaging, claim to add value to a less-than-mediocre mix, but still sell it on its intrinsic value as Ceylon Tea. In the process, the tea that is grown by the farmer in our country enriches a chain which has no real link to his country, at the expense of our producer, our farmer, and our plantation worker.
What the proponents of the Tea Hub are advocating so strongly is the replication of the same odious process, in the country of the orign of Ceylon Tea, though they have clothed the proposal in noble rhetoric, as a panacea for all the ills of the tea industry.
Pure Ceylon Tea is still synonymous with quality in the many countries in which it has been a traditional brew, despite the debasement it has suffered at the hands of multinationals who, whilst devaluing its intrinsic goodness, still leveraged the original quality perception in their marketing. Thus, packers determine the quality that they offer the consumer, as the purchasing choice of the latter is limited to what is available on the supermarket shelf.
This compulsion created by the multi-national marketer appears to have created an illusory perception in the minds of certain exporters, especially the Tea Hub proponents, that the cheap, debased tea is actually a consumer demand or preference. Dilmah, however, convincingly exploded this myth with its success in the marketing of quality ‘Pure Ceylon Tea’ in Australia and New Zealand.
Marshalling the opposition
At the beginning of this chapter I referred to the proposal by the then Trade Minister, Lalith Athulathmudali, in 1979, which, to the best of my knowledge, was the first instance when a leading politician presented tea importation as a strategy with potential for economic benefit to the country. To the best of my recollection, there had been no serious discussion about it before, although I am certain that the idea would have been tossed around in tea trading circles. It is really in the 1980s that wider discussion around the concept commenced, eventually gathering momentum until, within a couple of decades, it became an existential threat to the tea industry in its totality.
When I first opposed Athulathmudali’s proposal, I was, essentially, a bulk tea exporter. Dilmah arrived almost 10 years later. Thus, it must be clear to all readers that my opposition to the concept of a Tea Hub, contrary to the arguments of my opponents, was not to protect my interests or my personal brand, but entirely in the larger interests of the tea industry of Sri Lanka. It is for that reason that in this writing I have explained in considerable detail the likely impact of the implementation of such a proposal.
In the years since 2010, during which the Tea Hub proposal has been canvassed by its advocates at all relevant forums, I have used all the resources that I was able to muster to oppose it. My views have been expressed publicly, via newspapers and the electronic media, whilst concurrently being made known at the highest levels of government. I was also able to enlist the support of the Tea Small Holders’ Association and the assistance of the Private Tea Factory Owners’ Association, whilst the Planters’ Association also endorsed my view. However, as I have said earlier in this writing, from the latter I would have welcomed a far more involved engagement in opposition given that, in the event of unrestricted importation, the producer stood to lose more than any other industry group.
Independent journalists of several newspapers, both Sinhala and English, also published articles in support. My friend Herman Gunaratne, plantation owner and specialty tea producer-exporter from Galle, with his passion for Pure Ceylon Tea and his wide contacts within the smallholder segment and private factory owners of the south, was of immense help to me in marshalling support in resistance of the Tea Hub proposal.
The combined strength of the opposition groups, representing about 12% of the country’s population, eventually succeeded in temporarily suppressing a scheme which would have briefly benefited a few thousand people at most. However, the industry needs to be always aware of and be constantly on guard against a resurgence of the Tea Hub movement. If implemented, it will be, for a short while, very profitable for the proponents who are only interested in short-term gain. Since there is money in it, albeit for a handful of profiteers, I suspect that the idea will never be abandoned altogether, irrespective of opposition.
The Tea Hub proposition is a delusional attempt to bridge the chasm between the supplier of tea and the marketer of tea. It is a futile exercise to conflate these two mutually-exclusive concepts. The supplier furnishes a featureless commodity whilst the marketer markets a branded product with a specific identity. There can never connection between these two extremes. Finally, despite all opposition, if the Hub eventually becomes a dismal reality, and the local tea industry collapses as a result – as it surely will – there will not be one expert at that time to acknowledge responsibility and openly say, “Yes, I supported the importation of Orthodox Tea!”
Professor Mohamed Maheesh’s inquiry into reducing fuel waste amidst a failing public transport system and chronic congestion he discussed in a YouTube on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/reel/892342193673092) strikes a chord because it addresses a structural crisis with a call for individual agency. While the lack of a robust transit network often makes private vehicle use feel like a forced choice, rather than a luxury, the ‘unnecessary’ waste, he mentions, is often fuelled by a combination of outdated driving habits and a lack of collaborative transit solutions. In a country where idling in gridlock is a daily tax on both the wallet and the environment, the response must be a tactical shift toward high-occupancy behaviour—such as organised carpooling—and a conscious adoption of ‘smooth’ driving techniques that minimise the fuel-heavy cycles of rapid acceleration and braking. Ultimately, while we wait for the systemic overhaul of our railways and bus lanes, the most immediate way to curb waste is to decouple our movement from peak-hour bottlenecks through better route planning and, where possible, advocating for decentralised work models that remove the need for the commute entirely.
Reducing fuel waste
The question raised by Prof Mohamed Maheesh, regarding the feasibility of reducing fuel waste in a country plagued by gridlock and a weak public transport system, is a modern dilemma with deep historical irony. For a nation currently tethered to expensive, imported fossil fuels, the ‘unnecessary consumption’ mentioned by Prof Mohamed Maheesh is not just a personal inconvenience but a macroeconomic burden. While individual driving habits and the adoption of carpooling are immediate sticking points for reform, the core of the issue lies in the structural abandonment of high-capacity, electrified transit—a system that Sri Lanka actually pioneered over a century ago. Between 1892 and 1900, Colombo transitioned from a horse-drawn era to a modern electrical one. Following the call for tenders by the Colombo Municipal Council, the Colombo Electric Tramway was established, with the first lines—the Grandpass and Borella routes—opening on January 11, 1900. This was a period where the city’s movement was decoupled from the price of oil, powered, instead, by a dedicated station in Pettah. At its zenith, the system operated 52 tram cars, providing a reliable, fixed-rail alternative that kept the city’s arteries clear of the chaotic private vehicle growth we see today.
However, the decline of this ‘strong public transport’ began not with a lack of demand, but through labor and management friction. The historic Tramcar Strike of January 23, 1929, led by A.E. Goonesinha, marked a shift in the operational viability of the private firm, Boustead Brothers. Although the Municipal Council took over operations on August 31, 1944, the post-war global trend toward ‘flexible’ rubber-tired vehicles led to the system’s eventual demise. The last tramcar ran on June 30, 1960, and by 1964, even the electric trolley buses, that replaced them, were scrapped.
Importance of railway
This historical trajectory confirms Prof. Maheesh’s underlying point: the current waste is a result of moving away from a system that once worked. To reduce fuel consumption today, we are effectively trying to ‘tech’ our way out of a problem that was solved in 1900. Until we reintegrate the efficiency of rail-based or electrified mass transit, the ‘unnecessary’ waste of fuel in traffic remains an inevitable tax on a society that traded its electric tracks for a congested, oil-dependent future.
The modern Light Rail Transit (LRT) proposals for Colombo, primarily the Japan-funded project that reached advanced stages before its cancellation in 2020, represent a massive technological and spatial leap from the original 1900 tram system. While the original Colombo Electric Tramway operated at street level on narrow 12 km routes like the Grandpass and Borella lines, modern LRT plans envision a 75 km network across seven main lines, utilising elevated tracks to entirely bypass the ‘unnecessary traffic’ Prof. Mohamed Maheesh describes. Unlike the streetcars of the past, which were often accused of causing road congestion and operated among pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages, the proposed LRT is designed for high-speed, high-capacity movement—capable of carrying over 30,000 passengers per hour in a single direction, compared to the 52 modest tram cars that served a much smaller, slower-moving Colombo.
Despite these advancements, the two systems share a core philosophy: the electrification of public transport to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. The original trams were powered by a dedicated station in Pettah, a localised energy model that modern LRT would mirror on a much larger scale to insulate the city’s transport costs from global oil prices. However, the modern project has faced significant political and financial hurdles that the British-era system avoided during its first few decades. As of early 2026, although the Sri Lankan government has attempted to revive the project, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has maintained that approval depends on the successful completion of ongoing multimodal transport hubs. This delay leaves a century-old gap in Colombo’s infrastructure: we have moved from an era of functional electric tracks to one of aspirational elevated rails, while the daily reality remains the fuel-wasting gridlock Prof. Maheesh highlights.
A mirror of values
A transport system is more than a set of roads, buses, and trains. It is a mirror of how a society values its people—their time, their safety, their dignity, and their ability to participate fully in national life. In Sri Lanka, mobility is a daily struggle for millions, yet it is also the foundation upon which economic opportunity, social inclusion, and national cohesion depend. If we are to imagine a more humane and efficient future, we must begin by rethinking transport, not as a technical sector, but as a social contract.
Sri Lanka’s current transport landscape is a paradox. The country possesses a long-established railway network, an extensive road system, and a vibrant culture of movement that keeps even remote communities connected. Yet the lived experience of travel is often stressful, unpredictable, and unsafe. Congestion in urban areas has reached unsustainable levels. Public transport, though essential, suffers from fragmentation, poor coordination, and declining quality. Pedestrians navigate hostile streets, and vulnerable groups—women, elders, children, and disabled people—face daily risks that should be unacceptable in a modern society. A peoplefriendly transport system must, therefore, address not only infrastructure but the deeper structural and cultural issues that shape mobility.
Fundamental requirement
Safety is the most fundamental requirement of a humane transport system. Sri Lanka’s road fatality rates remain among the highest in the region, and these tragedies are not random misfortunes; they are the predictable outcomes of systemic neglect. Treating road safety as a public health priority rather than a policing matter is essential. This means designing roads that slow vehicles where people walk and live, enforcing speed limits consistently, improving driver training, and ensuring that vehicles meet basic safety standards. It also means recognising that certain groups—children walking to school, elders crossing busy roads, women travelling at night—face disproportionate risks. A society that protects its most vulnerable road users creates a safer environment for everyone.
Yet safety alone does not create dignity. A peoplefriendly system must also guarantee accessibility. In Sri Lanka, mobility is often shaped by inequality: urban residents enjoy more options than rural villagers, men feel safer travelling at night than women, and those with private vehicles enjoy privileges that public transport users do not. A humane system ensures that all citizens, regardless of income, gender, age, or physical ability, can travel with dignity. This requires lowfloor buses that elders can board without struggle, stations with ramps and handrails, clear signage for those with visual impairments, and reliable services that do not force women to choose between harassment and immobility. Accessibility is not an optional feature; it is a measure of a society’s moral maturity.
Public transport remains the backbone of mobility for the majority of Sri Lankans. Buses and trains carry millions of passengers daily, yet the system is undermined by fragmentation and outdated operational models. Private buses compete aggressively for passengers, SLTB struggles with limited resources, and rail serv
ices are hampered by ageing infrastructure. A peoplefriendly system requires a shift from competition to coordination. Instead of treating each bus owner as an independent entrepreneur, Sri Lanka must adopt a unified service model in which routes, schedules, and standards are centrally planned. Operators should be paid for service quality rather than passenger volume, eliminating the reckless race for passengers and ensuring that socially necessary routes are maintained even if they are not profitable.
Railway underutilised
The railway system, though historically significant, remains underutilised. Modernising key commuter corridors, upgrading signalling, improving rolling stock, and integrating bus services with rail stations can transform the railway into a reliable, highcapacity alternative to private vehicles. When trains run frequently, on time, and in coordination with buses, they become not only a mode of transport but a catalyst for economic development and urban regeneration. The potential is enormous; what is lacking is a coherent strategy and sustained investment.
A peoplefriendly system must also begin at the most basic level: the street. Walking is the most fundamental mode of transport, yet Sri Lanka’s urban and semiurban areas often treat pedestrians as afterthoughts. Sidewalks are narrow, broken, or non-existent. Crossings are dangerous. Shade is scarce. A humane transport system must reclaim the street as a shared space where pedestrians are respected. Continuous, wellmaintained sidewalks, safe crossings near schools and hospitals, shaded walkways, and trafficcalmed residential zones are essential. When walking becomes safe and pleasant, it reduces the need for short vehicle trips, eases congestion, and improves public health.
Cycling in mobility ecosystem
Cycling, too, deserves a place in the mobility ecosystem. Although not everyone will cycle, those who do reduce pressure on roads and public transport. In cities like Colombo, Kandy, Galle, and Jaffna, even a modest network of protected cycling lanes can encourage more people to choose bicycles for short trips. Cycling infrastructure is relatively inexpensive compared to road widening or flyovers, yet its social and environmental benefits are substantial. A peoplefriendly system recognises that mobility is not only about speed but about choice, and cycling expands the range of choices available to citizens.
Governance is perhaps the most overlooked dimension of transport reform. Sri Lanka’s current system is characterised by institutional fragmentation: the national ministry, provincial councils, local authorities, the police, SLTB, private operators, and various regulatory bodies all play roles, often without coordination. A peoplefriendly system requires a single, empowered regional transport authority for major urban areas—especially the Western Province—that can plan, regulate, contract, and monitor all modes of transport. Such an authority must be insulated from political interference, guided by data, and accountable to the public. Without coherent governance, even the best-designed policies will fail.
Technology can support this transformation, but it must serve people rather than dictate their behaviour. Integrated ticketing systems that allow passengers to use a single card or QR code across buses and trains reduce friction and make transfers seamless. Realtime information through apps, SMS, and digital displays reduces uncertainty and improves the perceived quality of service. Open data policies allow universities, startups, and civil society to analyse performance and propose improvements. Technology should not be a shiny distraction but a tool that enhances reliability, transparency, and user experience.
Cultural change is equally important. Sri Lanka’s transport culture is shaped by impatience, competition, and a sense of individual survival on the road. Changing this culture requires education, enforcement, and the redesign of physical spaces to encourage cooperation rather than conflict. When roads are designed to slow vehicles, when public transport is reliable, when pedestrians are protected, and when drivers are trained and held accountable, behaviour begins to change. Culture follows structure; people behave differently when the environment supports different behaviours.
Economic sustainability
Economic sustainability is another essential pillar. Public transport cannot rely solely on fare revenue; it requires stable, predictable funding. This can come from a mix of government budgets, modest fuel or parking charges, and land value capture around major stations. When public transport improves, land values rise; capturing a portion of this increase allows the system to fund itself sustainably. A peoplefriendly system is therefore not only socially just but economically rational.
Transforming Sri Lanka’s transport system will require a phased, realistic approach. Quick improvements—such as enforcing speed limits, repairing sidewalks near schools, improving lighting at stations, and piloting unified bus contracts—can build public trust. Mediumterm reforms—such as establishing regional transport authorities, modernising rail corridors, and implementing integrated ticketing—create structural change. Longterm goals—such as nationwide integration, transitoriented development, and sustained reductions in road deaths—require patience and political commitment. A peoplefriendly system is not built overnight; it is built through consistent, incremental progress guided by a clear vision.
Ultimately, the question of transport is a question of what kind of society Sri Lanka aspires to be. A society that values human dignity will design systems that protect and empower people. A society that values time will create reliable, efficient services. A society that values equality will ensure that mobility is not a privilege but a right. A peoplefriendly transport system is, therefore, not merely an engineering project but a moral project. It reflects a belief that every person—whether a schoolchild in Monaragala, a garment worker in Katunayake, an elder in Kurunegala, or a commuter in Colombo—deserves to move through the country safely, comfortably, and with dignity.
SL at a crossroads
Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads. The old model of endless road widening, unregulated competition, and privatevehicle dominance has reached its limits. Congestion grows, pollution worsens, and the social costs of unsafe roads continue to mount. The alternative is not a utopian dream, but a practical, achievable vision grounded in global best practices and local realities. It is a vision in which buses and trains form an integrated network; in which walking and cycling are safe and pleasant; in which women and children travel without fear; in which rural communities remain connected; and in which the daily journey becomes not a burden but a reflection of a society that values its people.
We urge the Minister of Transport to give urgent attention to the insights shared here and the historical precedents of Colombo’s transit system. It is vital that the Ministry recognises the transition from a once-functional electrified network to our current oil-dependent gridlock as a call to action. By prioritising the revitalisation of high-capacity, integrated, sustainable public transport, the government can directly address the unnecessary fuel waste and economic drain that currently burden the nation, and make the system a passenger friendly system.
by Professor M.W. Amarasiri de Silva
The ownership of Trincomalee port was highly contested by the Dutch, French and British as Gateway to Bay of Bengal in 1700s and 1800s. The famous seafarer Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, as a fleet Midshipman (trainee Naval officer) on board HMS Seahorse, in 1775, wrote in his journal “Trincomalee is the Finest Natural Harbour in the World”.
What Lord Nelson realised as a Midshipman was the immense Strategic, Natural and Commercial value of the port, considered as one of the deepest natural Harbours in the World.
Vice Admiral Sir Edward Hughes (British Royal Navy) and Vice Admiral Bailli De Suffern (French Navy) had sea battles to take control of Trincomalee from 25th August to 3rd September 1782.
French Forces attempted to capture Trincomalee on 30th August 1782, for supremacy in India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) Eastern Coast, which prompted the Royal Navy to come into action. Even though both fleets had heavy casualties (British – 51 killed, 283 wounded. French – 82 killed, 255 Wounded), but no ships were lost.
The British captured Trincomalee on 31st August 1795 from the Dutch after taking over Fort Ostenburg.
It is interesting to note Famous Admiral Lord Nelson and Trincomalee have a special connection. One of the Ships built after the death of Admiral Nelson in 1805 was named HMS Trincomalee; it was built in 1812. HMS Trincomalee is still active; it was restored and is now the National Museum of the Royal Navy at Hartlepool, England.
The US National Anthem “The Star- spangled Banner “was written by Francis Scott Key on 14th September 1814, onboard a truce ship at Baltimore harbour, Maryland, USA! It is pertinent to note that Sri Lanka Navy’s latest addition, ex-US Coast Guard Ship DECISIVE (P 628) started her 14,775 nautical miles journey, longest journey by a Sri Lanka Navy Ship, was from Baltimore to Colombo/ Trincomalee, as explained in my previous article.
Trincomalee was under British rule for a very long time. Their fleet was stationed in Trincomalee and the British developed Trincomalee into a major ship repair and logistical facility for their ships. Larger War ships, like Aircraft Carriers, Destroyers and Frigates, were stationed at Trincomalee.
During the 1930s, the British realised that there should be an Energy Storage facility between Oil fields of Saudi Arabia/ Arabian Gulf and Far East Asia, and designed and built a huge Oil Storage Facility at Trincomalee. The word HUGE is appropriate; as they built 100 tanks, each tank can contain ten thousand (10,000) MT of oil. So, an oil tank farm with a capacity of one million metric tons (one BILLION LITERS) was commissioned by 1935. As per their estimates at that time, the strategic oil stocks in Trincomalee were sufficient for their fleet for more than six months! Every country has Strategic Oil reserves except Sri Lanka! Even India stored part of their Strategic Oil Reserve at Trincomalee with the Indian Oil Company.
Building of tanks was a major engineering project; it was an ENGINEERING MARVEL in the 1930s!
IOC tanks on lower tank farm
Four-inch thick best quality Manchester Steel was used to build these tanks. Each plate is hand-riveted. They were built in such a way that if one tank caught fire, the fire would not spread to others. Pipe lines are connecting all tanks, which could be isolated or interconnected. The “TANK FARM “IS IN TWO SECTIONS – Lower tanks (numbering 39) closer to sea and Jetty (known as Oiling jetty) and Upper tanks on the hillock numbering 61 tanks. The Lower tank farm tanks, closer to the sea, were covered with thick concrete walls, to avoid attack by enemy small raid groups.
Huge Pump house, with very powerful pumps, was installed to pump oil to Upper tanks.All this happened almost 100 years ago!
As advancement of Imperial Japanese Army on the Asian Front and German Forces advancement on the Western Front was stopped by Allied forces in 1944/45 and World War Two ended earlier than anticipated due to US Atomic bombing of Japan. Trinco tanks were not fully utilised.
However, the British knew the importance of the Trincomalee harbour.
When we got Independence in 1948, we signed a Defence Pact with the British so that they could retain control of Trincomalee harbour, the oil tank farm and the China bay airfield.
It was on 15 October 1957, the British handed over the Trincomalee port. The then Prime Minister S W R D Bandaranaike was the Chief Guest at the event and the Royal Ceylon Navy Guard of Honour, commanded by Lieutenant Basil Gunasekara, proudly presented the salute to the Prime Minister. After a long time, the the Royal Navy Ensign (flag) was lowered at Trincomalee Naval Base and the Royal Ceylon Navy flag was hoisted. A plaque, erected near the Trincomalee Naval, has information about this historic occasion. The British ultimately left our shores almost after 162 years – (1795 to 1957).
In the 1987 Indo- Sri Lanka Accord, we agreed to develop the Trincomalee Oil Tank farm jointly with the Indian government. Later on, in the Lower tank farm, we gave 14 tanks to Indian Oil Company (IOC) and 24 tanks to the Ceylon Petroleum Company (CPC).
In January 2022, the remaining 61 tanks in the Upper tank farm were allocated for a CPC- IOC joint venture (51:49 shares) and the Managing Director of CPC was appointed the Chairman of this joint venture and CEO of Lanka IOC as Managing Director of the new company. Initially, Rs 100 million (51 million from CPC and 49 million from IOC) was allocated for renovation and development of these 61 tanks on the Upper tank farm. Feasibility study was done by a renowned international company. 
I worked voluntarily as the Chairman of Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd., (TPTL) for six months in 2023. It was fascinating to work in Trincomalee, where I spent most of my Naval career.
The present situation in the World has proved what the British thought almost 100 years ago is even valid today!
As per my information, Lanka IOC uses all its tanks to store fuel and sometimes do offshore bunkering of ships also. It built TWO MORE NEW TANKS and they have 16 tanks now. All are operational.
The CPC tanks remain unused except three leased to Prima Flour Mills Ltd., for storing fresh water.
The Upper tank farm is being renovated at a very slow pace. Out of 61 tanks on the Upper tank farm, tank No 91 was destroyed during World War II due to Japanese aircraft bombing. There is no tank number 99! (The British also thought 99 was a bad number?). Instead, we have number 101! Tank number 102 is partly built at the top of the hillock! So, that means the British had ideas of expanding tank farms BEYOND 100 TANKS!
The Election Manifesto of the National People’s Front, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, clearly stated that “Trincomalee Oil Tank Farm will be renovated with support of a friendly Foreign County”.
At least now, we should start it without further delay. As a former Chief of Naval Staff of India told me “Ravi, you are sitting on a GOLD MINE at the Trincomalee Naval Base; without realising the value of it”! How true!
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Dr Asha de Vos PhD: A Sri Lankan voice that reshaped Global Marine Science
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
At a recent United Nations (UN) event marking International Women’s Day, a striking portrait of a Sri Lankan lady scientist appeared on the screen, alongside a simple but powerful declaration: “They told me I was not capable – so I made a discovery that changed the world.”
The scientist was Dr Asha de Vos. For many Sri Lankans, this moment passed with little notice, confined to a brief news item in the newspapers. Yet for all that, in that global forum, her presence represented something far greater than personal recognition. It marked the arrival of a Sri Lankan scientist on the world stage, not as a participant, but as a pioneer.
A Discovery that Challenged a Conventional Precept
For decades, marine biology held a well-settled view: blue whales, the largest of mammals, in fact, the largest animals ever to have lived, are migratory. This assumption was repeated in textbooks, scientific articles, and accepted without question.
Dr Asha de Vos challenged it. Working in the waters off Sri Lanka, often with limited resources and without the extensive institutional backing available in more developed research environments, she identified a population of blue whales that does not migrate. These whales remain in Sri Lankan waters throughout the year.
This finding was not just an accident, a chance occurrence, nor an incidental observation. It was a carefully orchestrated scientific expedition that overturned a fundamental assumption about one of the most studied animal species on Earth. In doing so, it reminded the scientific world of an essential truth: that knowledge is never complete, and that even the largest creatures in the oceans can still hold secrets. It showed that such secrets of behaviour that were detected can have a profound impact on the aftermath, as far as the world is concerned.
Global Consequences of a Local Discovery
The implications of this work extended far beyond academic debate. A non-migratory population of blue whales is inherently vulnerable. Concentrated in a relatively small geographic area, these animals face risks that migratory populations can avoid.
The waters off Sri Lanka are among the busiest shipping routes in the world. Large vessels pass through areas that coincide with whale habitats, creating a significant risk of fatal collisions. Dr de Vos’s research brought international attention to this issue. It contributed to changes in shipping practices, including the adjustment of routes and the introduction of measures aimed at reducing whale-ship strikes of blue whales. In this way, her work moved beyond theory to influence real-world policy and conservation efforts.
Science Rooted in Sri Lanka
Equally significant is the context in which this work was carried out. Dr de Vos has consistently advocated for the leadership of local scientists in studying local ecosystems. Her position challenged the long-standing pattern where research in developing regions is often led by external actors. Quite appropriately and most beautifully, she describes the phenomenon as “parachute science”, the practice of Western Scientists collecting data in developing countries and then leaving without training or investing in the locals or the region.
To address this imbalance, she founded Oceanswell, Sri Lanka’s first marine conservation research and education organisation. Through this initiative, she has worked to build local capacity, inspire young researchers, and promote a deeper understanding of marine ecosystems. Her work has demonstrated that world-class science can emerge from a little country like Sri Lanka, not as an extension of external efforts, but as an independent and authoritative effort.
A Journey of Determination
Those widely quoted words attributed to Dr Asha de Vos are not mere rhetoric. They reflect the reality of a journey marked by doubt, resistance, and the challenge of pursuing an unconventional path. Marine biology was not an established field in Sri Lanka when she began her career. Opportunities were limited, and the path was uncertain. Yet, through persistence and conviction, she transformed these limitations into magnificent opportunities.
Dr de Vos has always dreamed of being an “adventure-scientist”. Her achievements include being the first and only Sri Lankan to obtain a PhD in marine mammal research, a distinction that underscores both her pioneering role and the barriers she has overcome. Today, Dr. de Vos is recognised internationally as a leading voice in marine conservation. Her work is cited in scientific literature, her insights are sought in policy discussions, and her presence is felt in global forums. The recognition she received at the United Nations is just one reflection of this standing.
However, her significance to Sri Lanka extends beyond her scientific contributions. She graphically represents the potential of Sri Lankan scholarship. She illustrates what can be achieved through determination and intellectual rigour. The lady serves as an inspiration to a new generation of scientists who may choose to follow paths that are not yet well defined.
A Moment That Should Not Pass Unnoticed
That such an achievement received only limited attention locally is a matter for reflection. Nations are often judged not only by the accomplishments of their citizens, but by the ability of those very same nations to recognise and celebrate them.
Dr Asha de Vos’s work has altered global understanding, influenced international policy, and established a new field of scientific inquiry within Sri Lanka. These are not minor achievements of limited consequence. They are contributions of lasting, immense, and seminal significance.
The image displayed at the United Nations, accompanied by a single sentence, captured a story of perseverance and discovery. It spoke of a brilliant scientist who refused to accept limitations imposed by others. It told of a discovery that reshaped certain types of scientific understanding. It brought to light a voice that, though once doubted, is now heard across the world. It is a voice that our beautiful Pearl of the Indian Ocean would do ever so well to listen to.
This author has not had the honour or the privilege of even meeting Dr Asha de Vos, but is so very pleased to declare that all of us should be so proud of a Sri Lankan Lady Scientist who is recognised, acknowledged and celebrated by the entire scientific world.
We salute you, Madam, for all of your splendid achievements!
Dr B. J. C. Perera
Showers may occur at several places in the Western and Sabaragamuwa provinces and in Galle, Matara and Nuwara-Eliya districts after 2.00 pm.
Fuel price hikes trigger transport disruptions and calls for fare increases
Prof. Peiris honoured by International Institute of Rehabilitation
CMC resumes parking fees
Substandard coal deepens energy crisis, warns former CEB Chief
Sri Lanka, ICRC to develop unified national database for missing persons
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
#SundayIsland 17th December – Headlines
Sunday Island – 28th March
Sunday Island Headlines – 21 March
Sunday Island – 21st February – Headlines
-
News5 days agoCIABOC questions Ex-President GR on house for CJ’s maid
-
News6 days agoSri Lankan marine scientist Asha de Vos honoured at UNGA opening
-
News6 days agoAustralian HC debunks misleading travel risk claims for Sri Lanka
-
News4 days agoBailey Bridge inaugurated at Chilaw
-
Latest News7 days agoWednesdays declared a government holiday with effect from 18th March
-
News4 days agoPay hike demand: CEB workers climb down from 40 % to 15–20%
-
News3 days agoCIABOC tells court Kapila gave Rs 60 mn to MR and Rs. 20 mn to Priyankara
-
Editorial5 days agoCouple QR-based quota with odd-even rationing