Connect with us

Features

Passage of 20A:

Published

on

Auspicious prelude to creation of a New Constitution

By Rohana R. Wasala

The Sinhalese in independent Sri Lanka have been nationalistic, but never narrowly communalistic; they have never illtreated non-Sinhala minorities on the basis of race or religion. Those who are wallowing in a sea of misinformation having been swept there by tides of hostile propaganda over the decades, may bristle at this, but the truth must be stated. The nationalism of the Sinhalese is not a construct of the last colonial era. Contrary to what Eurocentric theorists, their local clones, imperialist lackeys and their modern dupes believe, it is an inclusive nationalism. In their long history, the nationalism of the Sinhalese has been synonymous with patriotism or the love of their country, their island homeland. The JVP of 1971 and 1987-89 shed blood in the name of the country, not in the name of a race or a religion unlike respectively the defeated LTTE and the recent NTJ. To point this out is not being communalistic; it is only reacting to a false criticism. The racists and the extremists among the minorities raise false allegations of communalism against the majority community to justify their own communalism.

Today, even a section of the Sinhalese polity, including some young members of the FB generation, seem to think that to be a nationalist is the same as being a racist. That misconception is largely because they are not well enough informed about their own true history and truly admirable, multifaceted heritage, a legacy that is enjoyed by all communities in common: the still functional parts of the ancient hydraulic system, archaeological remains that attract foreign tourists and earn foreign exchange for the public coffers,and many other treasures. But anti-national individuals and agencies still censor Anagarika Dharmapala, the pioneer national revivalist of the colonial era, as a hate figure for ideologically rekindling, around the beginning of the 20th century, the nationalist spirit of the patriotic Sinhalese that had been choked in the course of a number of popular uprisings by force of arms by colonial invaders following the 1815 British intrigue. All the Sinhalese leaders who caused the 1948, 1956, 1972, 2009, and 2019 restorative revolutionary watersheds to happen were inspired by Dharmapala and were opposed by the real racists and received little support from non-Buddhist religious extremists. 

The ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British imperialists was naturally to the greater disadvantage of the majority community than to the minorities, who in fact stood to gain from it. The British exploited the minorities to weaken the historical defenders of the land. It may be plausibly argued that they used them as tacit allies to restrain the Sinhalese from rebellion, in return for privileged treatment (although this was limited to an elite that politically mattered to them, while the majority of the dispossessed mixed masses consisting of common Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims shared the rigours of colonial exploitation without discrimination). 

Particularly, the racist leaders of the Tamil minority feared that a parliamentary system of government where the Sinhalese would hold power because of their numerical superiority would mean a loss of their privileged status (hence the notorious 50-50 seat allocation demand of G.G. Ponnambalam which was contemptuously rejected by the Soulbury Commissioners in 1946. All the overtures that Sinhalese leaders, from D.S. Senanayake to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, made to the few but powerful racists (among the minority politicians) who somehow manage to hoodwink their people and persuade them to vote for them have failed to convince them to cooperate wholeheartedly with the majority in making unitary Sri Lanka a strong sovereign state where they harbour equal stakes and enjoy equal rights and share equal responsibilities. 

The false allegation of Sinhala communalism finds a convenient platform in the demand for the constitutional emasculation of the institution of the executive presidency (if complete abolition is not possible). This is because it is usually a Sinhalese who stands a chance of getting elected as president by the pan-Sri Lanka electorate. These minority politicians (the extremist few, not all minority politicians) propagate the idea that all Sinhalese are communalists, and that every president will be biased against their people.  But this is a fallacy. Though, at present, there is no likelihood of a minority politician becoming president because the minority polities are still mostly under the sway of racists and religious extremists, it is not an impossibility. If the non-racist, non-extremist politicians that there are among them are allowed to emerge dominant, they certainly will find more favour with the average Sinhalese voters than a conceited Premadasa or a clueless Sirisena, and a correspondingly modest and knowledgeable Tamil or Muslim president will no longer be just a dream.  There are many examples from the past to illustrate the possibility of such an eventuality, but this is not the time for dwelling on the subject.

 

Unwarranted dilution of the powers of the executive presidency was what was achieved by the controversial 19A, which, effectively divided people’s sovereign power between the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker. It was a three-headed monster, as a government minister recently said. As a result of it the sovereign people had to put up with a severely dysfunctional parliament that brought disaster to the country for an interminable four and a half years before it was finally dissolved by the President and a fresh Parliament elected.  The potential for the continuation of such a corrupt malfunctioning parliament is greater when the executive power of the President to dissolve it is curtailed or is completely taken away. That provides a situation open to exploitation by the Rishads and Hakeems of this world.

The Island

editorial/October 20, 2020 made the following comment, which suggests the despicable way they are ready to cock a snook at the sovereignty of the people: 

‘Bathiudeen brought down the hurriedly formed Sirisena-Rajapaksa government, in 2018, by refusing to vote with it in Parliament. That administration crashed, unable to raise a simple majority in the House. This time around, Bathiudeen can give the present regime the kiss of death by voting for the 20A. If he and his four MPs vote for 20A, as expected, those who claim that he and the government have struck a secret deal will be vindicated. The only way the government can avert such a situation is to engineer the crossover of some other Opposition MPs so that it does not have to depend on Bathiudeen…..’  

Who is this Bathiudeen? He was one of the Muslims forcibly evacuated from the North as a result of Prabhakaran’s ethnic cleansing policy. When Bathiudeen came down to Colombo he was a penniless youth with nothing but the worn out clothes on his body, it is said. Today, he is a billionaire with palatial houses here and there, and thousands of acres of land in his possession, with some more lands given to his relatives. He was able to help himself to such great wealth and also indulge in philanthropy at the expense of the state  because he became a politician and managed to join the winning side continuously from the previous MR government to the end of Yahapalanaya, and battened on the suffering of the fellow members of his own displaced community. During the near decade in power, he was charged by environmental groups with the devastating deforestation of the Wilpattu forest reserve; he was  rumoured to be complicit in importing cocaine hidden among goods in CWE containers, illegally exploiting the ilmenite containing mineral sand deposits at Pulmudai for personal profits, abusing the CWE to propagate extremist Islamist ideology, and he was even accused of having connections with the Jihadists who carried out the Easter Sunday attacks on churches and hotels.  When the police finally started looking for him to arrest him on the charge of having abused state/public property by transporting by SLTB buses some 10,000 voters from their new places of residence to their old (for casting their vote a second time it was alleged in the media) on the day of the presidential election in November last year. How is it that an extremely unscrupulous, originally insignificant penurious politician has been allowed to invest himself with such power as The Island editorial has described?

This is because the minority communalists who stick that label on the majority have been empowered by the existing faulty electoral system being abused, and the majority community effectively disenfranchised in the process. Having to strike a deal with political criminals or to ‘engineer the crossover of some other Opposition MPs’ as The Island editorial suggests in order to get 20A or any other nationally important piece of legislation through parliament, is a wretched proposition for any sovereign nation even to contemplate. But, isn’t there any prospect for the nation to reverse this unfortunate self inflicted anomaly? In my opinion, there is. It is to get rid of our own fear of adopting strategies that might run the risk of being attacked as racist, Sinhala Supremacist, discriminatory towards minorities, contrary to international standards, etc. We have to learn not to give a fig to such unfounded accusations. 

At present, the Sinhalese are scrupulously guiltless in this respect. Still they are treated as if they were the worst racists, human rights violaters, xenophobes, chauvinists in the world. Sometimes their own leaders criticise them for being jaatiwadin, or racists as Premadasa and Sirisena have already done: 

Former President Sirisena was heard, at the Easter Sunday Attacks inquiry recently, referring to racists among the Sinhalese. In a Twitter message, which was only in English and Tamil, but not in Sinhala, during the presidential election campaigning period, SJB leader Premadasa charged that Muslims were subjected to discrimination at the hands of the Sinhalese! He toured the North, presumably to show the northern Tamils that he was a champion of Tamil rights. He was given a heroic welcome in Jaffna and he garnered many Tamil votes, too. But it is not that they fell for stratagems; they knew that he was ready to betray his own people for a mess of (electoral) pottage.

 

Could a person who doesn’t care about his own kind be concerned about other people? 

 

The alleged Sinhala racists are none other than the few monks and some young Sinhala activists who are merely reacting to proven cases of harassment, aggression, and subversion against them by some extremist elements from among the minorities. Considerable numbers of young Tamils and Muslims are also among their supporters. Had the successive governments taken them seriously, the slaughter of innocents on April 21 could have been avoided. They represent millions, but are they taken notice of? Are they given proper media coverage? Global media (international TV channels such as Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, etc) broadcast distorted news about them.

There’s no place for them on the You Tube, either. 

The true situation in the country is different from what is usually reported in these media. Why did the nationalists win very nearly two thirds of parliamentary seats, with the racists and religious extremists getting fewer than what they usually win? The result surprised even the nationalists. This shows that the Sinhalese electorate can decide the future of the country by themselves. But they naturally prefer to do so with the participation of the minorities. If the Sinhalese MPs in parliament forget their partisan divisions and remember the patriotism of their ancestors who shed their blood to save their motherland for all its inhabitants, they will voluntarily help the government to muster the two thirds majority required or even more for introducing a completely new constitution when the time comes for that.

Not less than the survival of the unitary state, the nation, the dominant Buddhist culture and the island territory is at stake.  The America-led West and India seem to have found a deus ex machina opportunity to further crank up pressure on economically doddering Sri Lanka in the fast expanding mysterious Brandix Covid-19 cluster and in a court judgement given in UK that is favourable to the LTTE rump still active there: It was reported in the media on Wednesday (October 21, 2020) that UK’s Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission has concluded that the Home Office decision to keep the LTTE  as a proscribed terrorist organisation was flawed and unlawful. So, the British parliament is likely to lift the ban on the organization in that country. Britain is one of the forty countries that proscribed the terror outfit. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, this will make little difference to the status quo, because the UK has practically always allowed its members to behave as if there was no ban on it. 

So, all MPs in parliament, please forget your party, ethnic, religious and interpersonal differences in the name of our motherland. At the time of writing, the ad hoc 20A is to be put to the vote. It will be passed with necessary amendments. It is good if this was carried out without the government having to strike secret deals with communalists or to engineer crossovers from the Opposition (which would be a slap in the face of the voting public). The more momentous responsibility that you are going to fulfill is  to create a sound new constitution for our country that will save our nation from squabbling geopolitical powers who are promoting their own separate national interests at our expense, leaving us in perpetual political instability and endless economic misery. You Hon. MPs, especially the fresh thinking young ones, owe our resplendent island homeland  no less.

(PS: The 20A was passed in parliament with 156 voting for it and only 65 against. The votes cast in favour  exceeds the required two thirds majority by 6 votes. It is obvious that the government did not have to make undue special overtures towards Muslim MPs. There were only 6 Muslim votes but they were not critical, they were dispensable. It is clear that the Muslim MPs thrust themselves on the government side without being asked. Probably, they did this on the prior instructions of Hakeem (and Rishad as well). I think so because, about two weeks ago, Hakeem  told media men that he wouldn’t vote for 20A but that the other members of his party would probably do so. The government had better be careful: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Only Faustian bargains can be made with fundamentalists. No reasonable democratic dialogue is possible with Islamists. The government, it seems, was short of only 2 votes for acquiring the required number of votes, which was 150. Those two votes came from Tamil MP Aravind Kumar and SJB’s Diana Gamage. The latter violated her leader’s injunction, for which she must be praised. In my opinion, it is obvious that the former president, Sirisena, didn’t take part in the voting, not because the controversial NGO drafted and promoted 19A was passed under his presidency, but because he couldn’t any longer get associated with the hypocrisy of its defenders. 

The drafting of a completely new constitution commenced two or three weeks ago. The process will get into top gear now. The multiethnic drafting committee is headed by the renowned PC Romesh de Silva, and includes other legal luminaries such as Manohara de Silva and experts in related fields such as geologist and geopolitical analyst and commentator Prof. Gerald H. Peiris. They who love Sri Lanka as their beloved motherland can be expected to collectively produce a document that will be as much acceptable to the minorities as it is to the majority.)   



Features

A new mediation law for smarter dispute resolution of civil and commercial disputes – II

Published

on

(Part I of this article appeared in The Island yesterday.)

An examination of how some of the other countries have institutionalised mediation to address the problem of laws delays shows that an array of institutional devices have been adopted to provide for mediation not only as a voluntary option but also in some jurisdictions, as a mandatory requirement prior to litigation, to respond to serious issues of delays due to congestion in courts.

In the UK , in March 1994, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Lord  Woolf to review the Rules of civil procedure with a view to improving access to Justice, reducing the cost of litigation and removing unnecessary complexity. The resulting  Access to Justice Report (1996) triggered a series of reforms to improve the civil justice system primarily through the civil procedure rules (1999) which articulated that its overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. In 2023, the Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ  1416, decided that English courts do have the power to stay civil proceedings for, or order, parties to engage in mediation or another non-court- based dispute resolution process. The Rules were thereafter amended in 2024 to provide for the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) more proactively. These included rules that recognied that –

* promoting  or using ADR is a means of achieving the overriding objective;

*  the court has a duty to actively manage cases to further the overriding objective, including by ‘ordering or encouraging the parties to use, and facilitating the use of, alternative dispute resolution’ and ‘helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case’

* in deciding a costs order, a court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties, including whether a party failed to comply with an order for ADR or unreasonably failed to engage in ADR.

An ADR pledge made by the UK Government in 2001 was renewed in 2011, by the Dispute Resolution Commitment (DRC) requiring departments to use mediation, arbitration and conciliation. At that time, the then Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: ‘I believe that government should be leading by example by resolving issues away from court using alternatives which are usually quicker, cheaper and provide better outcomes. We want people to see court as a last resort rather than a first option, and cut down on the amount of unnecessary, expensive, painful and confrontational litigation in our society. In many cases methods like mediation are simply a common sense solution which benefits everyone involved. Although they will not be suitable in every case, they are already saving taxpayers millions every year and can save much more.’

The judicial dicta on the power of the courts to order mediation and the imposition of costs on even a successful party for unreasonable refusal to mediate, provides clear acceptance of a pro mediation approach by the UK courts.

In the USA , the discussion on the need for alternatives was raised in a speech made in 1906, by Roscoe Pound, a relatively unknown legal academic at the time, addressing the annual meeting of the American Bar Association (ABA). The title of his address was “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.”  He critiqued the American legal system and charged that it was riddled with archaic technicalities, too slow, too expensive and adversarial and that there was injustice when  procedure received emphasis above the substantive issues of a conflict. He spoke of the “sporting theory of justice” where litigation was considered as a game where the lawyers were gladiators battling in court to win. He charged that the contentious procedure compels ‘counsel to forget that they are officers of the court and  to deal with the rules of law and procedure exactly as the professional football coach with the rules of the court.’ At the time, Pound’s criticisms were considered scandalous, blasphemous and the ABA refused to publish the speech.  Things changed however.

Thirty years later, Roscoe Pound went on to become Dean of the Harvard Law School and became  a celebrated legal luminary. As for the legal system – Roscoe Pounds sentiments were not dismissed. Seventy years later in 1976, the then Chief Justice Warren Burger convened the Pound Conference (called the second  Pound Conference, with the first attributed to Pounds’ 1906 speech event), to consider whether Pounds’ criticisms had been adequately addressed and what more needed to be done. Professor Frank Sander of the Harvard Law School delivered the keynote address and spoke of his vision for a comprehensive Justice center (the “multi door court house”) where an alternative system would function parallel to the litigation system and disputes would be directed to the most appropriate process, such as arbitration and mediation.

The impact of these discussions resulted in significant changes to the dispute resolution landscape in the USA through statutes, inclusion of ADR in academic courses, and the professionalization of the practice of ADR processes, including mediation. Currently, arbitration and mediation are recognized within the mainstream legal system with resounding success.  All the States have recognized ADR pathways including mediation, in statutes. Mediation is well entrenched in the USA and the success rate is reportedly very high.

Australia has institutionalized mediation through several statutory and other initiatives. Courts are empowered to refer disputes to mediation without the consent of the parties to enable better management of civil matters. The Civil Dispute Resolution Act,  2011 contains provisions to ensure that, other than in respect of certain excluded civil proceedings,  parties must take “genuine steps” to resolve disputes prior to litigation. The Act obligates parties instituting proceedings in court to file a “genuine steps statement” setting out the steps taken to resolve issues or the reasons why no such steps were taken and further provides that a Lawyer acting for such a party must advise that party of the requirement and assist that party to comply with that requirement.

In Ireland, in the very recent case of Burke v O’Connell  [2026] IEHC 314 (May 20, 2026), the High Court considered  whether a court can order parties to mediate a dispute, against their will, or whether a court is restricted to simply inviting the parties to mediate. Among other issues, the court considered whether mandatory court ordered mediation is a breach of a constitutional right of access to courts, and decided that a court delaying court proceedings for court ordered Mediation, even against the will of the parties, would not constitute a breach of the right access to the courts under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, and that judges in Ireland regularly make clear that the right of access to the courts is not unconditional. Importantly the court observed that the court is not directing the parties to reach an agreement but simply to commence  a mediation.  The Court also observed that a court directed mediation order is a very limited order which does not compel settlement and only requires parties to commence a Mediation process and that while attendance at Mediation may not be voluntary, reaching a settlement is voluntary and made order that a court, in controlling its own process, did have the power to direct Mediation in appropriate cases, and that it was an inherent power of the court to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the courts.

 The Indian Mediation Act, 2023  articulates a pro mediation policy and provides for mediation via a court annexed scheme for which detailed statutory provisions are included. The Act states that parties may voluntarily, and whether there is a mediation agreement or not, take steps to pursue court annexed pre litigation mediation and provides for the steps to be taken therefor (section 5). The Act provides further that, even if such pre litigation mediation is unsuccessful, a court or tribunal may, at any stage of the proceedings, refer parties to undertake mediation and that when a court so refers a dispute, there is no obligation on the parties to come to a settlement (section 7). In respect of high value commercial disputes however,  a plaintiff is required to exhaust ‘the remedy of  pre institution mediation’ prior to instituting action, unless urgent interim relief is sought – section 12A introduced by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, No. 28 of 2018.

 In South Africa, parties are mandated to consider mediation before initiating  litigation in the High Court. Challenged by a serious issue of a severe backlog, with trial dates scheduled even up to 2031, a Directive was issued by the Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court along with a detailed process Protocol, effective April 2025 to require mandatorily that prospective litigants in all civil matters within the Gauteng division must participate meaningfully in a court-annexed mediation process before they can be allocated a trial date. The protocol requires, among other documents, that a Report of the Mediator stating, among other matters, whether parties “participated in good faith” be filed, to obtain a trial date. This requirement has been included to avoid what the Judge President refers to as “sham mediations.”  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Gmkzfu8gA&t=425s) Non-compliance results in matters being struck off the roll and could lead to adverse or punitive cost orders. Currently, a challenge to this Directive by the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association and the Law Society of South Africa is pending, without a stay of the Rule.

 Singapore has emerged as a global leader in the practice of mediation. The Mediation Act 2017 provides for a framework for the use of mediation and for enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement as a decree  of court. Mediation is well entrenched in the legal system of Singapore and enjoys the support of government as well as the judiciary. Singapore played a key role in UNCITRAL in the deliberations that led to the drafting of the text for the 1998 UN  Mediation Convention and was host to the Convention signing ceremony in August 1999 where a historical number of 46 countries, including Sri Lanka, signed the Convention on the very first day. Many of the training programmes for Sri Lankans that have been arranged by the International ADR Center, have been conducted by the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) which is renowned for its programmes and for services to handle international commercial disputes.

 The European Union Directive (EU Directive 2008/52/EC) provides that a court may, when appropriate and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, invite parties to use mediation (Article 5.1) and that the Directive is without prejudice to national legislation to making the use of mediation compulsory or subjective to incentives or sanctions … provided that such legislation does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system (Article 5.2). Many European countries have integrated mediation into their dispute resolution systems through legislation or procedural laws in ways that range from recognizing voluntary reference to mediation to requiring mandatory mediation for specified categories of disputes. Countries such as Italy, Greece, Germany and Belgium are some that have robust systems.

It is clear therefore, that jurisdictions around the world, irrespective of the legal system, have sought to recognize mediation for its value not only for minor community dispute resolution but also for the resolution of high value commercial and other family and civil dispute resolution.  UNCITRALs preparation of the text for the 1988 UN Mediation Convention was inspired by the significant increase in the use of mediation in international trade and the need for a uniform regime for enforcement, such as the UN NY Arbitration Convention provides in respect of arbitration awards.

 Sri Lanka’s advancements have thus far been driven by the private sector. A holistic approach to find responses to the backlog in courts to relieve the pressure on courts, is desired. The promotion  of ADR, including mediation, deserves support from the government as well, since, clearly, laws delays have an adverse impact on the economy of the country and should not be seen only as an access to justice issue. As articulated in the UN Mediation Convention, among the positive beneficial results of using mediation for dispute resolution, is that there are cost savings for the State. It is a means of resolving disputes without detracting from the quality of the resolution.

 

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney at Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Center

Continue Reading

Features

Killing of Colombo’s ancient trees — a warning on UN’s World Desertification Day – 17 June

Published

on

A fallen tree in Colombo. (File photo courtesy NewsFirst)

In recent years, falling trees have claimed lives, destroyed homes, and sparked an urgent debate: should Colombo’s ancient trees be cut down in the name of safety? But this is the wrong question. The real crisis is not that these trees are dangerous — it is that we have made them so. Through decades of road widening, root-smothering pavements, and indiscriminate branch cutting, we have steadily undermined the very trees we now fear. What we are witnessing is not nature failing us. It is us failing nature. As the world marks World Desertification Day on 17th June, Sri Lanka would do well to reflect that desertification does not begin only in distant, arid lands — it begins whenever a city turns its back on its own green heritage.

In recent years, falling trees have claimed lives, destroyed homes, and sparked an urgent debate: should Colombo’s ancient trees be cut down in the name of safety? But this is the wrong question. The real crisis is not that these trees are dangerous — it is that we have made them so. Through decades of road widening, root-smothering pavements, and indiscriminate branch cutting, we have steadily undermined the very trees we now fear. What we are witnessing is not nature failing us. It is us failing nature.

Colombo, our commercial capital, is considered one of the greenest cities in the world. This is highlighted by the award of the world’s first Wetland City designation to our administrative capital, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte. Both cities and their green heritage should be treasured and protected — not only as assets of their citizens, but as a matter of national pride.

It is against this backdrop that one must view with deep concern the ongoing destruction of trees and greenery across Sri Lanka, particularly in urban settings such as Colombo and Kotte. The majestic trees lining our traditional tanks, rural areas, and urban areas are part of our heritage. The trees lining Colombo’s Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha (previously named the Green Path because of its large trees), Gregory’s Road, Thurstan Road, and Bauddhaloka Mawatha, are over a hundred years old. These are living monuments of our heritage. They provide shade, a natural canopy, and a habitat for a remarkable diversity of bird populations within the city. It is therefore vital that we make every effort to preserve these trees unless they pose a direct danger to human life.

Why Do These Trees Become Dangerous?

To address this question, we must first understand why large trees continue to fall during periods of strong winds. Old photographs indicate that it is we who have widened roads and built pavements to cover the roots of these majestic trees, a true heritage from the past.

A leading reason for trees to fall is age-related decay. Old trees tend to develop weak branches and trunks. Regular inspection of their structural integrity and timely treatment of disease would go a long way in preventing such failures.

The second reason is indiscriminate cutting of branches, which disrupts the natural balance of the tree. A principal offender in this regard is the Ceylon Electricity Board. When interviewing workers engaged in trimming city trees, one consistently hears the same justification: the branch must be cut because it is touching or close to a power line. There are no arborists, trained experts, or senior officials to guide these workers or determine whether a less destructive approach is possible.

The third reason is the destruction of root systems. Across the city, one can observe concrete and paving laid directly over the root zones of large trees. This prevents oxygenation and moisture from reaching the roots, causing them to deteriorate or die. The inevitable consequence is that the tree gradually loses its structural support at the base, making it vulnerable to falling.

What Should Municipalities and Town Councils Do?

To save our ancient trees, we must counter the flawed argument that we need to replace them—these trees are priceless “nature’s investments for hundreds of years” and, as a BBC article on ancient oaks suggests, their genetic heritage is vital for resilient future forests. See “1,000-year-old oaks used to create ‘super forest’ (See )

*  A nationwide strategy is essential: we must start by strengthening the expertise of tree officers in the Colombo Municipal Council and other urban councils to ensure professional health assessments are available, while also linking with botanists, academics, and environmental groups at the University of Colombo.

*  Use Google Maps and GIS for systematic mapping and reviving a citizen science platform, similar to one previously developed by University of Moratuwa, where students and the public can report environmental harm with photos and locations.

*  Technology offers more powerful tools. There are Conventional Visual Tree Risk Assessment (VTRA) methods which fail to detect risks. More advanced methods were reported at the 30 th International Forestry and Environment Symposium 2026 e.g. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). These are able to find trunk decay and found examples in urban trees at Viharamahadevi park and Keppetipola road.

*  We can raise public awareness through social media and community events like “tree walks,” a practice which could be further popularized by groups like Ruk Rakaganno (see ) and the Love A Tree Foundation (see )

*  Finally, we must learn from international models like the UK’s Ancient Tree Forum (see ). The latter specialises in protecting trees as a heritage which must be preserved and protected for future generations.

by Saroj Jayasinghe
Emeritus Professor
Consultant Physician

Continue Reading

Features

Dengue and its prevention: A global public health challenge

Published

on

Dengue is one of the fastest spreading mosquito-borne viral diseases in the world today, posing a growing threat to nearly half of the global population. The World Health Organization describes dengue as a viral infection transmitted to humans through the bite of infected female mosquitoes, primarily Aedes aegypti and, to a lesser extent, Aedes albopictus. Once considered a disease limited to tropical regions, dengue has now expanded widely across continents, driven by urbanization, climate change, population movement, and weak vector control systems.

The global burden of dengue has increased dramatically over recent decades. According to WHO estimates, there are approximately 100 to 400 million infections annually, although a large proportion remain asymptomatic or undiagnosed. The disease is now endemic in over 100 countries, with Asia bearing the highest share of cases, followed by Latin America and Africa. As transmission intensifies and outbreaks become more frequent, dengue has emerged as a major public health concern requiring coordinated prevention and control strategies.

The nature of dengue infection

Dengue is caused by four closely related viruses known as serotypes: DENV-1, DENV-2, DENV-3, and DENV-4. Infection with one serotype provides lifelong immunity to that specific strain, but only partial and temporary protection against the others. This means a person can be infected up to four times in their lifetime.

Most dengue infections are asymptomatic or mild. When symptoms do occur, they typically appear 4 to 10 days after the bite of an infected mosquito. The clinical presentation includes high fever, severe headache, pain behind the eyes, muscle and joint pain, nausea, vomiting, rash, and fatigue. Because these symptoms resemble other viral infections, dengue is often underdiagnosed in early stages.

While most patients recover within one to two weeks, a small proportion develop severe dengue. This life-threatening condition is characterised by plasma leakage, severe bleeding, organ impairment, and shock. Without timely medical intervention, severe dengue can be fatal. WHO emphasises that early diagnosis and appropriate clinical management can reduce fatality rates to below 1 percent in well-managed settings.

Transmission and mosquito ecology

Dengue is transmitted primarily through the bite of infected female Aedes mosquitoes. These mosquitoes are highly adapted to urban environments and typically breed in artificial water containers found in and around homes. Unlike malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, Aedes mosquitoes bite during the daytime, with peak activity in the early morning and late afternoon.

The lifecycle of the mosquito plays a crucial role in transmission. Eggs can survive for months in dry conditions and hatch when they come into contact with water. Even small collections of water, such as flower pots, discarded containers, tyres, and water storage tanks, can serve as breeding sites.

Urbanisation has significantly contributed to the spread of dengue. Rapid population growth in cities often leads to overcrowding, poor waste management, and inadequate water storage practices, all of which create ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes. Climate factors such as increased rainfall, humidity, and temperature further enhance mosquito survival and virus replication.

Risk factors and global expansion

Several factors increase the risk of dengue transmission. Population density is a key driver, as densely populated urban areas provide abundant human hosts for mosquitoes. Inadequate housing conditions and poor access to clean water force communities to store water in containers, which often become breeding grounds.

Human mobility also contributes to the spread of the disease, as infected individuals can introduce the virus into new regions where competent mosquito vectors are present. Climate change has expanded the geographical range of Aedes mosquitoes into previously unaffected areas, increasing the risk of outbreaks in both tropical and subtropical regions.

WHO has noted that dengue incidence has increased significantly over the past 50 years, with periodic outbreaks becoming more frequent and severe. The disease is now considered a major global health threat, comparable in burden to other high-impact infectious diseases in many regions.

Clinical management and absence of specific treatment

There is currently no specific antiviral treatment for dengue. Management is supportive and focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing complications. Paracetamol is recommended to reduce fever and pain, while non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and aspirin are avoided due to their risk of increasing bleeding.

Patients with severe dengue require hospitalisation for close monitoring and supportive care, including intravenous fluid replacement and management of shock or bleeding. With proper medical care, mortality rates can be significantly reduced.

Early detection is critical. Warning signs such as persistent vomiting, severe abdominal pain, bleeding gums, rapid breathing, and sudden fatigue indicate progression to severe dengue and require immediate medical attention.

Prevention: the cornerstone of dengue control

Since there is no specific cure, prevention remains the most effective strategy against dengue. WHO strongly emphasises integrated vector management as the foundation of dengue control.

Personal protection measures are essential, especially during daytime hours when mosquitoes are most active. These include the use of mosquito repellents containing DEET, picaridin, or IR3535, wearing long-sleeved clothing, and using mosquito nets when resting during the day. Window and door screens also help reduce indoor mosquito exposure.

Environmental management is equally important. Communities are encouraged to eliminate breeding sites by removing stagnant water, disposing of waste properly, and cleaning water storage containers regularly. Even small water collections can sustain mosquito populations, making household-level participation crucial.

Public health programmes also rely on insecticide spraying during outbreaks to rapidly reduce mosquito populations. However, WHO emphasises that chemical control alone is insufficient without sustained community involvement and environmental management.

Community participation and public health response

Community engagement is a central pillar of dengue prevention. Effective control requires continuous participation from households, schools, workplaces, and local authorities. Public awareness campaigns play a vital role in educating populations about mosquito breeding habits and personal protection measures.

Surveillance systems are also essential for early outbreak detection and response. Health authorities monitor dengue cases and mosquito populations to identify high-risk areas and implement targeted interventions.

Integrated approaches that combine environmental management, biological control, chemical interventions, and public education have proven most effective in reducing transmission.

Vaccination and emerging tools

In recent years, dengue vaccines have been developed and introduced in some countries under specific conditions. WHO has recommended the use of certain vaccines in areas with high transmission, particularly for populations with prior exposure to dengue. However, vaccination strategies remain limited and must be carefully implemented due to the complexity of immune responses to dengue infection.

Research continues into new tools such as genetically modified mosquitoes, Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes that reduce virus transmission, and improved diagnostic technologies. These innovations offer promising additional tools but are not yet substitutes for established prevention measures.

Dengue remains a rapidly growing global health challenge with significant medical, social, and economic impacts. Its spread is driven by urbanisation, climate change, and the adaptability of mosquito vectors. While no specific cure exists, timely clinical care can prevent deaths, and effective prevention strategies can significantly reduce transmission.

The World Health Organization emphasises that dengue control depends on a combination of personal protection, environmental management, community participation, and strong public health systems. As the disease continues to expand geographically, sustained global commitment is essential to reduce its burden and protect vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Trending