Connect with us

Features

New laws by govt. without legitimacy require more consensus

Published

on

by Jehan Perera

The government is proceeding at speed on its course of legislative activism with regard to economic, reconciliation and security matters. Its ability to do so comes from its majority in parliament. Due to this majority in parliament won at the general elections of 2020, the government is in a position to get its way. However, the government’s legitimacy and moral right to rule and make such reforms has been in question after the economy was brought to its knees in 2021 by the misguided policies of the previous government, and government leaders had to resign from office or flee their homes. In the context of the second world war, the Soviet leader Josef Stalin was said to have asked how many divisions did the Pope have. The reality is that the power of the present government depends on its legal power, not moral power. The present tendencies nearly everywhere in the world is that the sword is mightier than the pen.

These days it seems that morality and power are often taken to be opposites, with morality grounded in the common good, and power located in self-interest. The government’s legal power to rule will remain unchallenged so long as elections are postponed as they have been or not held at all as quite often speculated. Among the new laws that the government is rushing through parliament are ones that will strengthen the coercive arms of the state and make it costly for people to protest against it. Heading this list of laws is the Anti-Terrorism Bill, which makes a wide range of actions, including media freedom and economic strike actions, liable to fall within the domain of terrorism. Not far behind are repressive laws such as the Online Safety Bill, which is being justified by government leaders as intended to protect women and children from intrusive social media, but which will impact on freedom of speech and expression on social media.

The case of another new law that has been gazetted and will be taken up in parliament in the coming weeks is the Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Commission. The objective of this institution would be to promote reconciliation. The participation of opposition political parties, especially the ethnic and religious minority parties is extremely important when it comes to reconciliation. Or else it is like clapping with one hand. It is also a matter for concern that the draft law with respect to the Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Commission (TURC) has been prepared and gazetted even before the submission of the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate the findings of preceding Commissions and Committees headed by Justice A H M D Nawaz.

MINIMAL CONSULTATIONS

In the synopsis of the Nawaz Commission report issued in February last year, the Commissioners referred to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka and stated that the contours of the commission would be set out in due course when the Final Report was submitted. The government’s urgency in rushing through with the law pertaining to the TURC, without even waiting for the Nawaz Commission to submit its report, and with only minimal consultation with opposition political parties and civil society suggests a motivation that goes beyond reconciliation. There seems to be a desire to obtain the support of the international community by producing the TURC law, even though it may not have the support from the aggrieved ethnic and religious minorities for whom it is meant.

This week the government will be taking up the ONUR bill for debate after which it will be enacted as law. The bill proposes to establish an Office for National Unity and Reconciliation which can play a role in coordinating all reconciliation matters taken up by the government. There are commendable objectives outlined in the ONUR bill, such as promoting national unity and peaceful coexistence, which require dialogue and negotiation among representatives of diverse communities in Sri Lanka, both in civil and political societies. Unfortunately, as in the case of the Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Commission (TURC) there has been little or no effort to engage in public discussion on it regarding its content or to educate the general public about the need for it.

There are three problem areas that need to be addressed in the ONUR bill. Appointments to the ONUR Board would be appointments by the Minister under whose purview the institution comes. The minister is empowered to recommend the appointment of 11 members who will have terms of 3 years, while the chairperson has no time limit, which is inadvisable. There is a need for a more multi-partisan method of appointments to ensure that those appointed represent the diversity of ethnic and religious groups and socio-cultural interests. It is reported that a committee stage amendment has been proposed for appointment of these members to be done by the Constitutional Council which is to be welcomed.

WHITE ELEPHANTS

ONUR is expected to play a central role in the national reconciliation process that brings together all the independent reconciliation mechanisms. Therefore, it would be advisable that appointments to the ONUR board should include ex-officio representatives from the Office of Missing Persons, Office of Reparations, NGO Secretariat and the Truth, Unity and Reconciliation Commission which is soon to be established. This will ensure that all the reconciliation institutions share a common vision and are informed of the work that is being done by each of them. There is also a need to ensure representation from civil society to ensure that the perspectives of affected communities and victims are considered and acted upon.

The role given to ONUR to be prescriptive vis a vis civil society by virtue of the power “to guide and facilitate peace and reconciliation programmes conducted by local organisations including community based organisations” is a third concern. This authority to monitor and review the work of civil society raises concerns about the prospect of government heavy-handedness in the context of the possible politicisation for narrow and partisan purposes of national reconciliation policy and actions. The new law needs to be clear that the government will not direct civil society to follow its guidelines, but can “assist and facilitate” them to do so. National reconciliation cannot be enforced from the top down. It needs to be a voluntary process involving all ethnic and religious communities.

There is a need to draw civil society and elected political representatives into the discussion about the new institutions on reconciliation. Prior to the passage of the new laws, the government needs to engage with opposition political parties, particularly those representing minority ethnic and religious communities, as well as civil society, to establish a multi-partisan consensus, encompassing pluralistic values on the path to make this a true reconciliation process for national unity. Unless the new reconciliation institutions are based on consensus rather than set up by a majority vote in parliament, they will end up as being akin to white elephants, non-functional, adding burdens on the government’s finances and further eroding faith in the reconciliation process.



Features

The Digital Pulse: How AI is redefining health care in Sri Lanka?

Published

on

A quiet yet profound shift is underway in American healthcare, and its implications extend far beyond the United States’ borders. A recent Associated Press report describes a scene that would have seemed improbable, even five years ago: a woman in Texas, experiencing side effects from a weightloss injection, does not call her doctor, visit a clinic, or even search Google. Instead, she opens her phone and consults ChatGPT. She tells the system how she feels, describes her symptoms, and receives an instant explanation. This behaviour, once the domain of early adopters and technology enthusiasts, has now entered the mainstream. A West Health–Gallup poll confirms that nearly onequarter of American adults used an AI tool for health information or advice in the previous month. For a country with one of the world’s most expensive and fragmented healthcare systems, this shift is not merely a technological curiosity. It is a sign of the public searching for speed, clarity, and affordability in a system that often fails to provide any of these.

Sri Lanka, though vastly different in scale, culture, and resources, is not insulated from this global transformation. If anything, the pressures that drive Americans toward AI—long wait times, high costs, difficulty accessing specialists—are even more acute in our own health system. The difference is that Sri Lanka is only beginning to experience the cultural and institutional adjustments that accompany widespread AI use. Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. What is happening in the United States today is almost certainly a preview of what will happen here tomorrow in Sri Lanka, though in a form shaped by our own social realities, linguistic diversity, and healthcare traditions.

The American experience shows that AI is becoming the new gateway to health information. As Dr. Karandeep Singh of UC San Diego observes, AI tools now function as an improved version of the old Google search. Instead of sifting through dozens of links, users receive a concise, conversational summary tailored to their question. This is precisely the kind of convenience that Sri Lankans, too, will find irresistible. In a country where a single specialist appointment can require hours of travel, waiting, and uncertainty, the appeal of an instant, alwaysavailable digital assistant is obvious. The idea that one could ask a question about a rash, a fever, a medication side effect, or a lab report and receive an immediate explanation—without navigating hospital queues or private consultation fees—will inevitably attract public interest. For example, one of my friends, who was with me in school, called me and said he is prescribed Linavic, a drug for type 2 diabetes. I told him that, as it is not widely known in the USA, to give me the generic name. He searched ChatGPT and told me it is called Tradjenta, which is widely available in the USA as a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes.

But Sri Lanka’s path will not be identical to America’s. Our adoption of AI in healthcare is emerging through institutions rather than individuals. Nawaloka Hospitals has already introduced AI-powered chatbots, including NASHA, an OPD assistant capable of guiding patients through symptom assessment and basic triage. This is a significant development because it signals that Sri Lankan hospitals are preparing for a future in which AI is not an optional addon but a core part of patient interaction. The government’s draft National AI Strategy reinforces this direction by identifying healthcare as a priority sector and emphasising responsible, transparent, and safe deployment. Academic bodies, such as the Sri Lanka Medical Association, have also begun training clinicians to understand and work alongside AI systems. These are early but important steps, suggesting that Sri Lanka is building the professional ecosystem needed for safe AI integration.

  Yet, the public’s relationship with AI remains limited. Unlike in the United States, where consumers independently experiment with tools like ChatGPT, Sri Lankans tend to rely on doctors as the primary source of authority. Digital literacy varies widely, especially outside urban centres. Sinhala and Tamilcapable AI tools are still developing. And our society has a long history of health misinformation spreading rapidly through social media, from miracle cures to conspiracy theories. Without careful regulation and public education, AI could amplify these risks rather than reduce them. The danger is not that AI will replace doctors, but that poorly informed users may treat AI outputs as definitive diagnoses, bypassing professional care when it is urgently needed.

At the same time, Sri Lankans’ lived experiences reveal why AI will inevitably become part of the healthseeking landscape. Anyone who has visited the outpatient department of a major government hospital knows the reality: queues forming before dawn, patients clutching files and prescriptions, and overworked medical officers trying to see hundreds of cases in a single shift. In rural areas, the situation is even more challenging. A villager in Monaragala or Mullaitivu may have to travel hours to see a specialist, often relying on neighbours or family for transport. Many postpone care simply because they are unsure whether a symptom is serious enough to justify the journey. For such individuals, an AI-based triage tool—available on a basic smartphone, in Sinhala or Tamil—could be transformative. It could help them decide whether to seek immediate care, wait for the next clinic day, or manage the issue at home.

  Sri Lanka’s private healthcare sector, too, is ripe for AI integration. Private hospitals are increasingly turning to digital systems for appointment scheduling, lab report delivery, and patient communication. Anyone who has waited for hours at a private OPD, despite having an appointment, knows the frustration. AI-driven systems could help streamline patient flow, predict peak times, and reduce bottlenecks. They could also assist doctors by summarising patient histories, flagging potential drug interactions, and providing evidencebased guidelines. For patients, AI could offer explanations of lab results in simple language, reducing anxiety and improving understanding.

There are already glimpses of this future. Some Sri Lankan patients, especially younger urban professionals, quietly admit that they use AI tools to interpret their blood tests before seeing a doctor.

Others use AI to understand the side effects of medications prescribed to them. Parents use AI to check whether a child’s fever pattern is typical or concerning. Migrant workers, returning home for short visits, use AI to prepare questions for their doctors, ensuring they make the most of limited consultation time. These behaviours mirror the early stages of the American trend, though on a smaller scale.

Sri Lanka’s cultural context will shape how AI is used. Our society places great trust in doctors, often viewing them as authoritative figures whose word should not be questioned. This trust is a strength, but it can also discourage patients from seeking information independently. AI has the potential to shift this dynamic—not by undermining doctors, but by empowering patients to participate more actively in their own care. A patient who understands their condition is better able to follow treatment plans, ask relevant questions, and recognise warning signs. AI can support this empowerment, provided it is used responsibly.

The deeper question is not whether Sri Lanka will adopt AI in healthcare, but how. The American example shows both the promise and the peril. AI can democratise access to information, reduce anxiety, and empower patients. But it can also mislead, oversimplify, or create false confidence. The challenge for Sri Lanka is to build a culture of responsible use—one that recognises AI as a tool, not a substitute for clinical judgment. Hospitals must ensure accuracy and transparency. Regulators must set standards. And the public must learn to treat AI as a guide, not a guru.

 Sri Lanka has an opportunity to leapfrog. By studying the American experience, we can avoid its pitfalls and adopt its strengths. We can design AI systems that respect our linguistic diversity, our cultural habits, and our healthcare realities. We can integrate AI into hospitals in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the doctor-patient relationship. And we can prepare our citizens to use these tools wisely, with curiosity but also with caution.

The transformation is already underway. It will accelerate whether we prepare for it or not. The question for Sri Lanka is whether we will shape this future deliberately or allow it to shape us by default. The American shift toward AImediated healthcare is a reminder that technology does not wait for societies to catch up. It moves forward, and nations must decide whether to follow passively or lead thoughtfully. Sri Lanka, with its strong public health tradition and growing technological ambition, has every reason to choose the latter.

by Prof Amarasiri de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Not a dog barked

Published

on

I began running on the beach after a fall on a broken pavement left me with a head injury and a surgically repaired eyebrow. Mount Lavinia beach, world‑famous and crowded, especially on Sundays, is only a seven‑minute walk from home, so it became the obvious place for my rehabilitation jogs.

On my first day, my wife, a true Mount Lavinia girl, accompanied me. Though we’ve been married for over 40 years, this was the first time I had ever jogged on the beach. She practically shepherded me there and watched from a safe distance as I made my way towards the Wellawatte breakwater. Dogs were everywhere: some strays, some with collars. I’m not usually afraid of dogs, so I ran past them confidently. Then one fellow barked sharply, making me stop. He advanced even after I stood still. I bent down, picked up some sand, and only then did he retreat, still protesting loudly. On my return run, he repeated the performance.

The next time, I carried a stick. The beach was quiet, perhaps my friend had taken the day off. But on the third day he was back, barking as usual. I showed him the stick and continued. Further along, more dogs barked, and I repeated the ritual. Soon I found myself growing jittery, even numb, whenever I approached a dog. Jogging was no longer comfortable.

My elder daughter, an ardent animal lover who keeps two dogs and wanting to have more, suggested bribery, specifically, biscuits. So, on my next run, I filled my pocket with them. When the usual culprit appeared, I tossed him a biscuit before he could bark. He sniffed suspiciously, then ate it. I jogged on. The rest of the “orchestra” received similar treatment and promptly forgot to bark. Not a dog barked the entire run, or on my way back.

Some groups had five or six dogs, but bribing the noisiest one was enough to quieten the rest. Soon they grew used to me running close to them, and the biscuits made me a trusted friend. These round little sugary crackers turned out to be the perfect currency for seemingly aggressive but essentially harmless dogs, a fact well known to my daughter, Dr. Honda Hitha, but a revelation to me.

One day, a friendly dog decided to escort me home. After receiving his biscuit, he lingered near our gate before returning to the beach. Over time, the number of escorts grew until I found myself flanked by about 10 canine disciples. They became my strength instead of a source of fear. They were darlings. Unlike humans, their affection, even if won initially with biscuits, soon became unconditional.

They still accompany me home, whether or not they receive a treat. Bless them! May they be born human in their next lives, perhaps the only way our wicked world can become a better place.

by Dr. M. M. Janapriya

Continue Reading

Features

It’s Israel and US that need a regime change

Published

on

Netanyahu and Trump

If there is one country that urgently needs a regime change it is Israel. The whole world is suffering and thousands of people, including children and women, are dying due to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival strategy. He needs the war to avoid going to jail and also certain defeat at the next elections. The corruption and other charges against him, if proved, would send him to jail. He had asked the Israel President for a pardon and his friend Trump also has written to the President, on his behalf.

Netanyahu is able to commit genocide in Gaza with impunity because the US backs him to the hilt, economically, politically, militarily and also in the United Nations. Without all this, Israel will not be able to fight its many wars and pursue its “Greater Israel” project in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and also weaken the countries that oppose its grand plan, such as Iran, Yemen and Turkey. The US gives military aid to Israel, worth USD 3.8 bn, annually, which is used in these genocidal wars and expansionist projects. The US is, therefore, complicit in all these war crimes.

US presidents, beginning from Eisenhower (1950) to Joe Biden (2022), expressed displeasure at Israeli aggression. Ronald Reagan halted the shipment of cluster artillery shells, in 1982, over concerns about their use against civilians in Lebanon, and delayed the delivery of F-16 warplanes until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. George H.W. Bush (1990s) postponed $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to attend the Madrid peace conference. Barack Obama  frequently criticised Israeli settlement expansion and, in the final days of his term, withheld a US UN Security Council veto on a resolution regarding settlements. Joe Biden (2020s) threatened to withhold military aid if Israel launched a major offensive in Rafah during the 2024 conflict in Gaza, pausing a shipment of heavy bombs. Most of these presidents had been in favour of the two state solution for the Palestine problem as well.

Trump abandoned these longstanding US policies on Israel that were upheld by Obama and later restored by Biden. Significant and far-reaching changes, included recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital,  moving the embassy, declaring settlements not inherently illegal, and recognising Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, as part of Israel sovereignty. These evil deeds of Trump seem to have boomeranged on him as he battles to extricate himself from a war forced on him by Israel, which has resulted in enormous economic and political, not to mention military, losses for the US and Trump. Consequently Israel, in the eyes of many leading political commentators, is now a liability for the US.

   How this war was started reveals the dastardly and barbaric mentality of Netanyahu and Trump. The US and Iran were engaged in negotiations, with the mediation of Oman, to resolve their differences, and on 26 February, 2026, the Foreign Minister of Iran stated that a historical agreement with the US was about to be entered into and, the following day, Oman corroborated this announcement. Iran apparently had agreed that its nuclear programme could be brought under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly on 28 February, 2026, Israel and the US attacked Iran, Trump saying that it posed a nuclear threat to the US! Oman said it was “dismayed” and the Iranian Foreign Minister said it was a “betrayal”. Obviously, Trump, who is under obligation to the Jewish lobby, which had funded his election campaign, had been drawn into the war. The Epstein files issue may have pushed Trump across the threshold. Iran’s response was calculated and appropriate. Trump says he will obliterate the Iranian civilisation in one night but soon agrees to have negotiations with Iran, in Islamabad.

However, Netanyahu cannot afford an end to the war he started to save his own skin. He goes ahead and drops 100 bombs in 10 minutes on Lebanon, killing 254 civilians, including children. The massacre in Lebanon continues with Israel pushing towards the Litani river in an attempt to annex southern Lebanon. Israel disqualifies itself not only as a reliable ally but also as an honourable member of the world community by having leaders of the calibre of Netanyahu. Israel is fast becoming internationally isolated, according to experts like Professors Robert Pape, John Measheimier, Richard Wolff, Jeffrey Sachs and Yanis Varonfakis. And these experts are of the view that if Israel continues its aggressive approach and expansionist policy, disregarding the historical facts of its origin and the Palestine problem, it will implode and destroy itself.

Israel must face the reality that Iran has emerged stronger after the war and may have control over the Strait of Hormuz and may even force the US out of the region. Israel, under Netanyahu, may not be willing to acknowledge these facts, but the people in the US must realise that it is not in their national interests to have Israel as an indispensable ally. This war is very unpopular in the US not entirely due to the economic impact but the extremely atrocious way it has been prosecuted by Israel  and also the equally horrendous threats made by the US against Iran. It is also very unpopular among the US allies who bluntly refused to join or even approve it. Australia, Japan and South Korea, though far removed from the theatre of war, seem to be pretty angry about the whole thing, as they are badly affected by the economic impact of the war. They may be concerned about the brutality of Israel, and the degree of support and approval it gets from the US.

Those who have significantly gained from the war may be Russia who could have a windfall on their oil sales, and China who could quietly weave its diplomatic network throughout the Middle East and watch the decline of US influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and UAE, two countries bombed by Iran, have already started a dialogue with Iran. These developments may hasten the emergence of the new world order, spearheaded by China.

The war, that was started by Netanyahu, with a willing Trump, seems to have backfired on them, with both facing a hostile world and a fast changing geopolitical global situation. Trump’s MAGA project was aimed at quelling the growth of the new world order that had China and Russia at the head. He attempted to hit Russia with sanctions but failed. He tried to curb China with tariffs but failed. Denying oil supplies to China was attempted by kidnapping the Venezuelan President. China’s monopoly on rare earth minerals was a headache to Trump and he proposes to annex Canada and Greenland which have rich deposits of these elements. War on Iran was another opportunity to do a regime change and get control over that country and its oil. He threatened to wipe out Iran saying that “the civilization would die tomorrow night”, only a psychopathic megalomaniac could make such utterances , not a president of the US. Fortunately, the changing world order would not allow Trump to achieve any of his crazy goals.

Netanyahu inadvertently may have hastened his own downfall by starting a war without realising that the global geopolitics have changed and he cannot have his way even with the full backing of Trump. Both Israel and the US need a regime change if the world is to have peace.

 by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending