Connect with us

Features

PLAYING FOOTBALL WITH OUR CONSTITUTION

Published

on

by ASOKA SENEVIRATNE
Washington DC.

1978 Constitution: Our constitution is once again set for amendment for the 20th time within 42 short years. The 1978 JRJ constitution moved us away from the Westminster model to a more US-like model with the creation of the so called three co-equal branches; legislative, executive and judicial. The three branches were meant to be independent and watch over each other. The power of the purse was left to the legislature while the power to govern was the job of the executive. The judicial branch was meant to be the custodian of the constitution and the laws to ensure that the Rule of Law was ensured.

The 1978 constitution was full of holes and was self-contradicting. The legislature had the power of the purse while the executive appointed ministers to his leadership team, the cabinet. This simple ill-advised provision high-jacked the independence of the legislature. Compare this to the US constitution, wherein members of the legislature are not allowed to hold office within the executive branch. So we experienced a ton of meaningless ministers appointed by the executive to win them over. A rampant waste of money we don’t have.

Moreover, JRJ created the Provincial Councils, District Development Councils, Governors etc. and all for what? Just to manage a 25,000 sq. mile island? What an administrative mess he created. Nobody knew who did what! The entire administration apparatus was a gigantic wasteful mess with overlapping responsibilities. The public watched while their towns became yet another unplanned bunch of shops with broken sidewalks, open drains potholed roads and a barely functional and lethargic local beaureaucracy who don’t care a darn. The bosses in those local bodies were not in their offices while a frustrated public were left with no answers to their basic problems. Files were gathering dust on the boss’s desk; a simple bribe will locate lost files.

JRJ gave immense power to his office and bragged that the only thing he could not do was to turn a man into a woman. But who had oversight over the executive? The legislature whom he hijacked? Besides if the Executive is the all-powerful party leader, which member of his party would want to deny him money or cross his path? We lost accountability and transparency. This led to unprecedented corruption. There was no mechanism for oversight over the president, his cabinet or his bureaucracy. Rot began to set in to our political culture to the point that after 42 years people are simply fed up of corruption from the top to bottom.

The epitome of this level of corruption was when the central bank was robbed with the last regime just a few months into power. Millions were spent on a presidential investigation but nobody was indicted nor the findings made public. Everybody knows that this was not the only mega robbery. Billions of public money went unaccounted for. JR’s so called independent judiciary was hijacked by the top cop, the Attorney General coming under political pressure. The entire law enforcement apparatus was politicized. Police were not allowed to do the job they swore an oath to do. JR’s independent judiciary was a myth. So the entire JRJ experiment was just hog wash and dragged our government’s apparatus into historical levels of corruption.

 

National character

Besides being a 2,600 old civilization, can we be proud of our national character? Buddhist monks wearing the much revered saffron robe use thug-like language on national TV and in public with monks kidnapping monks in the fight for a seat in the legislature and monks attacking fellow citizens in broad daylight. This is unprecedented. Isn’t the essence of Buddhism elimination of craving? Huh!

Elected leaders are openly attacking private lives of each other or using abusive language in rallies instead of addressing much needed policy to fix our nation’s problems. They brazenly violate the law on national television. Remember the minister who grabbed the camera of a TV reporter and also tied a public servant to a tree? He was never indicted. Where was the Attorney General? Where was the police? Was this not because of the politicization of out law enforcement apparatus? JRJ constitution was not equipped to deal with this. Was it not a joke?

Worse, remember members of the legislature behaving like a herd of cattle in front of the nations’ eyes just a couple of years ago. They too hurled ugly verbal abuse at each other without debating policy and yelled other like street thugs while the House was in session. What happened to common decency and mutual respect at least while inside the nation’s supreme assembly? Is this the example the leaders set to our youth? Is this how we would like to define our national character? what happened to our nation? What happened to honor and common decency? Who is responsible?

 

President Rajapaksa

Never has our nation been led by a leader like Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He has the right thinking, approach and policies to rescue our nation from this sad state. He has a full plate. For the brief period he has been in power he has displayed competence and good judgment. He made the massive electoral victory for his party possible. He is confronted with a mammoth task created by mismanagement by all previous leaders. He appears fearless about achieving his goals. However, he is definitely challenged by at least some of the members of the new parliament who see politics as business as usual – gettting a luxury vehicle, getting a luxury bungalow, appointing family and friends to top jobs, wasting precious time at five star receptions, and virtually doing nothing much to help the nation but adding to its massive debt burden. It cannot be business as usual. The nation is in peril in every which way.

 

20th Amendment

The constitution of a nation is a sacred document . It is the national script. It defines our fundamental rights and obligations. It basically defines who we are as a nation. It is not meant to be amended every five years to suit the party in power. Instead it is meant to protect the nation against tyranny, abuse and excesses by rulers among other things.

For God’s sake let our constitution, including the proposed 20A be in simple and concise language. The US constitution which is the oldest in the world and written over 230 years ago only had 4,543 words and only 27 amendments to date. I quote the US constitution because it stands out as the founding document of the most successful nation the world has ever seen. The document in very simple language makes it possible for almost anybody to read and understand it. The constitution need not be filled with legal jargon and wrap around provisions, edits and exceptions. Just try and read the 19A and see how complicated it is. I am not sure if even some lawyers can comprehend it. Get rid of the office of the prime minister. Why do we need a costly prime minister when the executive power is vested with an elected president? Get rid of provincial councils. Get rid of governors. Get rid of chief ministers. Get rid of the nonsensical PR system. Get rid of state ministers. Get rid of MP’s appointed as ministers. Their job is to legislate and see to the welfare and development of their electorates.

The president’s leadership team or the cabinet should be made up of proven experts in their field from the private sector, military and state sector. The president can run his administration with the GA’s and grama niladharis. Use technology. Streamline processes. Hold ministers accountable with public hearings by committees from the legislature. Makes sure members of these committees know their constitutional responsibilities and not just loyalty to their parties. Sorry, but that is how a good democracy is supposed to work. Create a post of independent Inspector General in each ministry, appointed by the elected president whose job it is to watch over waste, fraud and abuse. He or she will be a watch dog on behalf of the president and the public.

Do not remove the independent commissions created by 19A. That was a great idea and Rail and Sirisena deserves credit for it. Do not change the term limits of the president. Countries have learned bitter lessons from leaders who remain in power for ever and ever. That includes USA too who enacted 22nd Amendment to create term limits after FDR displayed undesirable, high handed attitudes. The proposed 20A should not be a document merely discussed by the cabinet. It is too sacred not to deserve a large public debate. It should be debated over the local media so we can get it right. If not the next government will amend it again to suit itself.

Remember cabinet decisions are mostly the decisions of the leader of the cabinet. Do you think our cabinet members are free to challenge the leaders without losing their jobs or getting kicked out of the party? Thank you JRJ! You were so smart!!! People have respect for President Gotabaya and his ability to make correct decisions. That is also why his party won hugely. He has the noble task of amending the constitution to suit the country, not the party. Done right, he will be in the history books. Done wrong, he will go down in history as just another leader who played party politics just to remain in power!

I personally think Gota is better than that. May he have the wisdom to do right by his troubled nation!



Features

India shaping-up as model ‘Swing State’

Published

on

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with foreign political leaders at India’s 77th Republic Day celebrations. (PMO via PTI Photo)

The world of democracy is bound to be cheering India on as it conducts its 77th Republic Day celebrations. The main reasons ought to be plain to see; in the global South it remains one of the most vibrant of democracies while in South Asia it is easily the most successful of democracies.

Besides, this columnist would go so far as to describe India as a principal ‘Swing State.’ To clarify the latter concept in its essentials, it could be stated that the typical ‘Swing State’ wields considerable influence and power regionally and globally. Besides they are thriving democracies and occupy a strategic geographical location which enhances their appeal for other states of the region and enables them to relate to the latter with a degree of equableness. Their strategic location makes it possible for ‘Swing States’ to even mediate in resolving conflicts among states.

More recently, countries such as Indonesia, South Africa and South Korea have qualified, going by the above criteria, to enter the fold.

For us in South Asia, India’s special merit as a successful democracy resides, among other positives, in its constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Of principal appeal in this connection is India’s commitment to secularism. In accordance with these provisions the Indian federal government and all other governing entities, at whatever level, are obliged to adhere to the principle of secularism in governance.

That is, governing bodies are obliged to keep an ‘equidistance’ among the country’s religions and relate to them even-handedly. They are required to reject in full partiality towards any of the country’s religions. Needless to say, practitioners of minority religions are thus put at ease that the Indian judiciary would be treating them and the adherents of majority religions as absolute equals.

To be sure, some politicians may not turn out to be the most exemplary adherents of religious equality but in terms of India’s constitutional provisions any citizen could seek redress in the courts of law confidently for any wrongs inflicted on her on this score and obtain it. The rest of South Asia would do well to take a leaf from India’s Constitution on the question of religious equality and adopt secularism as an essential pillar of governance. It is difficult to see the rest of South Asia settling its religious conflicts peacefully without making secularism an inviolable principle of governance.

The fact is that the Indian Constitution strictly prohibits discriminatory treatment of citizens by the state on religious, racial, caste, sex or place of birth grounds, thus strengthening democratic development. The Sri Lankan governing authorities would do well to be as unambiguous and forthright as their Indian counterparts on these constitutional issues. Generally, in the rest of South Asia, there ought to be a clear separation wall, so to speak, between religion and politics.

As matters stand, not relating to India on pragmatic and cordial terms is impossible for almost the rest of the world. The country’s stature as a global economic heavyweight accounts in the main for this policy course. Although it may seem that the US is in a position to be dismissive of India’s economic clout and political influence at present, going forward economic realities are bound to dictate a different policy stance.

India has surged to be among the first four of global economic powers and the US would have no choice but to back down in its current tariff strife with India and ensure that both countries get down to more friction-free economic relations.

In this connection the EU has acted most judiciously. While it is true that the EU is in a diplomatic stand-off of sorts with the US over the latter’s threat to take over Greenland and on questions related to Ukraine, it has thought it best to sew-up what is described as an historic free trade agreement with India. This is a truly win-win pact that would benefit both parties considering that together they account for some 25 percent of global GDP and encompass within them 3 billion of the world’s population.

The agreement would reduce trade tariffs between the states and expand market access for both parties. The EU went on record as explaining that the agreement ‘would support investment flows, improve access to European markets and deepen supply chain integration’.

Besides, the parties are working on a draft security and defence partnership. The latter measure ought to put the US on notice that India and the EU would combine in balancing its perceived global military predominance. The budding security partnership could go some distance in curbing US efforts to expand its power and influence in particularly the European theatre.

Among other things, the EU-India trade agreement needs to be seen as a coming together of the world’s foremost democracies. In other words it is a notable endorsement of the democratic system of government and a rebuffing of authoritarianism.

However, the above landmark agreement is not preventing India from building on its ties with China. Both India and China are indicating in no uncertain terms that their present cordiality would be sustained and further enriched. As China’s President Xi observed, it will be a case of the ‘dragon and the elephant dancing together.’

Here too the pragmatic bent in Indian foreign policy could be seen. In economic terms both countries could lose badly if they permit the continuation of strained ties between them. Accordingly, they have a common interest in perpetuating shared economic betterment.

It is also difficult to see India rupturing ties with the US over Realpolitik considerations. Shared economic concerns would keep the US and India together and the Trump administration is yet to do anything drastic to subvert this equation, tariff battles notwithstanding.

Although one would have expected the US President to come down hard on India over the latter’s continuing oil links with Russia, for instance, the US has guarded against making any concrete and drastic moves to disrupt this relationship.

Accordingly, we are left to conclude from the foregoing that all powers that matter, whether they be from the North or South, perceive it to be in their interests to keep their economic and other links with India going doubly strong. There is too much to lose for them by foregoing India’s friendship and goodwill. Thus does India underscore its ‘Swing State’ status.

Continue Reading

Features

Securing public trust in public office: A Christian perspective – Part III

Published

on

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Professor, Dept of Public & International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka and independent member, Constitutional Council of Sri Lanka (January 2023 to January 2026)

This is an adapted version of the Bishop Cyril Abeynaike Memorial Lecture delivered on 14 June 2025 at the invitation of the Cathedral Institute for Education and Formation, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

(Continued from yesterday)

Conviction

I now turn to my third attribute, which is conviction. We all know that we can have different types of convictions. Depending on our moral commitments, we may think of convictions as good or bad. From the Bible, the convictions of Saul and the contrasting convictions of Paul (Saul was known as Paul after his conversion) provide us with an excellent illustration of the different convictions and value commitments we may have. As Christians we are required to be convinced about the values of the Kingdom of God, such as truthfulness and rationality, the first and second attributes that I spoke of. We are also called to act, based on our convictions in all that we do.

I used to associate conviction with fearlessness, courage or boldness. But in the last two to three years of my own life, I have had the opportunity to think more deeply about the idea of conviction and, increasingly, I am of the view that conviction helps us to stand by certain values, despite our fears, anxieties or lack of courage. Conviction forecloses possibilities of doing what we think is the wrong thing or from giving up. Recall here the third example I referred to, of Lord Wilberforce and his efforts at abolishing the slave trade and slavery. He had to persevere, despite numerous failures, which he clearly did. In my own experiences, whether at the university or at the Constitutional Council, failures, hopelessness, fear or anxiety are real emotions and states of mind that I have had to deal with. In Sri Lanka, if convictions about truth, rationality and justice compel a public official to speak truth to power and act rationally, chances are that such public official has gone against the status quo and given people with real human power, reason to harm them. Acting out of conviction, therefore, can easily give rise to a very human set of reactions – of fear for oneself and for one’s family’s safety, anxiety about grave consequences, including public embarrassment and, sometimes, even regret about taking on the responsibilities that one has taken on. In such situations, such public officials, from what I have noticed, do not ever regret acting out of conviction, but rather struggle with the implications and the consequences that may follow.

When we consider the work of Lord Wilberforce, Lalith Ambanwela and Thulsi Madonsela we can see the ways in which their convictions helped them to persist in seeking the truth, in remaining rational and in seeking justice. They demonstrate to us that conviction about truth and justice pushes and even compels us to stand by those ideals and discharge our responsibilities in a principled and ethical way. Convictions help us to do so, even when the odds are stacked against us and when the status quo seems entrenched and impossible to change. This is well illustrated in how Wilberforce persisted with his attempts at law reform, despite the successive failures.

Importantly, some public officials saw the results of acting out of conviction in their lifetime, but others did not. Wilberforce saw the results of his work in his lifetime. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who opposed Hitler’s rule, was executed, by hanging, by the Nazi German state, a couple of weeks before Hitler committed suicide. Paul spent the last stage of his life as a prisoner of the Romans and was crucified. These examples suggest that conviction compels us to action, regardless of our chances of success, and for some of us, even unto death. Yet, conviction gives us hope about the unknown future. Conviction, indeed, is a very powerful human attribute.

I will not go into this, but the Christian faith offers much in terms of how a public official may survive in such difficult situations, as has been my own experience thus far.

Critical Introspection

I chose critical introspection as the fourth attribute for two reasons. One, I think that the practice of critical introspection by public officials is a way of being mindful of our human limitations and second it is a way in which we can deepen and renew our commitment to public service. Critical introspection, therefore, in my view, is essential for securing public trust and it is an attribute that I consider to be less and less familiar among public officials.

In Jesus, and in the traditions of the Church, we find compelling examples of a commitment to critical introspection. During his Ministry, he was unapologetic about taking time off to engage in prayer and self-reflection. He intentionally went away from the crowds. His Ministry was only for three years and he was intentional about identifying and nurturing his disciples. These practices may have made Jesus less available, perhaps less ‘productive’ and perhaps even less popular. However, this is the approach that Jesus role-modelled and I would like to suggest to you today, that there is value in this approach and much to emulate. Similarly, the Biblical concept of the Sabbath has much to offer to public officials even from a secular perspective in terms of rest, stepping away from work, of refraining from ‘doing’ and engaging with the spiritual realm.

Importantly, critical introspection helps us to anticipate that we are bound to make mistakes. no matter how diligent we may be and of our blind spots. Critical introspection creates space for truth, rationality and conviction to continue to form us into public officials who can secure public trust and advance it.

In contrast, I have found, in my work, that many embrace, without questioning, a relentless commitment to working late hours and over the weekends. This is, of course, at the cost of their personal well-being, and, equally importantly, of the well-being of their families. Relentless hard work, at the cost of health and personal relationships, is commonly valorised, rather than questioned, from what I can see, ironically, even in the Church.

One of the greatest risks of public officials not engaging in critical introspection is that they may lose the ability to see how power corrupts them or they may end up taking themselves too seriously. I have seen these risks manifest in some public officials that I work with – power makes them blind to their own abuse of power and they consider themselves to be above others and beyond reproach.

Where a public official does not practice critical introspection, the trappings of public office can place them at risk of taking themselves too seriously and losing their ability to remain service-oriented. Recall the trappings of high constitutional office – the security detail, the protocol and sometimes the kowtowing of others. It is rare for us to see public officials who respond to these trappings of public office lightly and with grace. Unfortunately for us, we have seen many who thrive in it. In my own work, I have come across public officials who are extremely particular about their titles and do not hesitate to reprimand their subordinates if they miss addressing them by one of their titles. Thankfully, I also know and work with public officials who are most uncomfortable with the trappings of public office and suffer it while preserving their attitude of humility and service.

Permit me to add a personal note here. In April 2022 a group of Christians and Catholics decided to celebrate Maundy Thursday by washing the feet of some members of the public. I was invited to come along. On that hot afternoon, in one corner of public place where people were milling about, the few of us washed the feet of some members of the public, including those who maintain the streets of Colombo. I do not know what they thought of our actions but I can tell you how it made me feel. The simple act of kneeling before a stranger and one who was very obviously very different to me, and washing their feet, had a deep impact on me. Many months later, when I was called, most unexpectedly, to be part of Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Council and had to struggle through that role for the better part of my term, that experience of washing feet of member of the public became a powerful and personal reminder to me of the nature of my Christian calling in public service. I do think that the Christian model of servant leadership has much to offer the world in terms of what we require of our public officials.

Compassion

Due to limitations of time, I will speak to the fifth attribute only briefly. It is about compassion – an aspect of love. Love is a complex multi-dimensional concept in Christianity and for today’s purposes, I focus on compassion, an idea that is familiar to our society more generally in terms of Karuna or the ability to see suffering in oneself and in others. The Gospels, at one point, record that when Jesus saw the crowds that he was ministering to, that he had compassion on them.

Of course, we know that the people are not always mere innocent victims of the abuse of power but can be active participants of the culture of patronage and corruption in our society. Nevertheless, for public officials to secure public trust, I think compassion, is essential. Compassion, however, is not about bending the rules, arbitrarily, or about showing favouritism, based on sympathy. In Sri Lanka we are hard pressed to find examples of compassion by public officials, at high levels, despite the horrors we have experienced in this land. However, in the everyday and at lower layers of public service, I do think there are powerful acts of compassion. An example that has stayed with me is about an unnamed police officer who is mentioned in the case of Yogalingam Vijitha v Wijesekera SC(FR) 186/2001 (SC Minutes 28 August 2002). In 2001, Yogalingam Vijitha was subject to severe forms of sexual torture by the police. After one episode of horrific torture, including the insertion of the tip of a plaintain-flower dipped in chilli to her vagina, the torturers left her with orders that she should not be given any water. This unnamed police officer, however, provided her with the water that she kept crying out for. In a case which records many horrific details about how Yogalingam Vijitha was tortured, this observation by the Court, about the unnamed police office, stands out as a very powerful example of compassion in public office.

Compassion for those who seek our services whether at university, at courts or at the kachcheri, should be an essential attribute for public officials.

Aspects not explored

There is much more that can be said about what a Christian perspective has to offer in terms of securing public trust in public office but due to limitations of time, I have only spoken about truthfulness, rationality, conviction, critical introspection and compassion – and that, too, in a brief way. I have not explored today several other important attributes, such as the Christian calling to prioritise the vulnerable and the Christian perspectives on confession, forgiveness and mercy that offers us a way of dealing with any mistakes that we might make as public officials. I have also not spoken of the need for authenticity – public officials ought to maintain harmony in the values that they uphold in their public lives with the values that they uphold their personal lives, too. Finally, I have not spoken of how these attributes are to be cultivated, including about the responsibility of the Church in cultivating these attributes, practice them and about how the Church ought to support public officials to do the same.

Securing Public Trust

Permit me to sum up. I have tried to suggest to you that cultivating a commitment to truthfulness, rationality, conviction about the values of public service, critical introspection and compassion – are essential if public officials are to secure public trust.

The crisis of 2022 is a tragic illustration of the pressing need in our society to secure trust in public office. In contrast, the examples of Thulsi Madonsela, former Public Protector of South Africa, of late Lalith Ambanwela, former Audit Superintendent from Sri Lanka and Lord Wilberforce illustrate that individual public officials who approach public service can and have made a significant difference, but, of course, at significant personal cost. Given the mandate of this memorial lecture, I drew from the Christian faith to justify and describe these five attributes. However, I do think that a similar secular justification is possible. Ultimately, secular or faith-based, we urgently need to revive a public and dynamic discourse of our individual responsibilities towards our collective existence, including about the ways in which can secure public trust in public office. I most certainly think that the future of our democracy depends on generating such a discourse and securing the trust of the public in public office.

If any of you here have been wondering whether I am far too idealistic or, as some have tried to say, ‘extreme’ in the standard that I have laid out for myself and others like me who hold public office – I will only say this. Most redeeming or beautiful aspects of our human existence have been developed mostly because individuals and collectives dared to dream of a better future, for themselves and for others. Having gone through what has easily been the toughest two-three years of my life, I know that, here in Sri Lanka, too, we have among us, individuals and collectives who dare to dream of a better future for this land and its peoples – and they are making an impact. Three years ago, you could have dismissed what I have had to say as being the musings of an armchair academic – but today, given my own experiences in public office with such individuals who have dared to dream of a better future for us, I can confidently tell you – these are not mere musings of an armchair academic but rather insights drawn from what I have been witness to.

(Concluded)

by Dinesha Samararatne

Continue Reading

Features

High-end tourists or budget-friendly visitors!

Published

on

Sri Lanka: We got the natural beauty, rich culture, and warm hospitality to become the ultimate luxury destination

According to the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA), over 130,000 tourists have arrived in the country during the first 15 days of this year.

Impressive, indeed, but how many of them make up the big spending list, or were the majority backpackers?

Of course, we need both – the big spenders and the backpackers – but, as one knowledgeable source said, it’s better to have 10 tourists spending 1000 dollars (per day) than 1000 tourists spending 10 dollars (per day)!

When it comes to tourism, countries often prioritise big spenders over high numbers. Why? Because big spenders bring in more revenue.

A smaller number of high-spending tourists can generate more income for local businesses, infrastructure, and communities, compared to a large number of low-spending visitors.

For example, luxury travellers tend to spend more on accommodation, dining, and activities, boosting the local economy.

Yes, Sri Lanka’s got the potential to attract both – high-end tourists and a steady flow of budget-friendly visitors.

One would say that with our rich culture, stunning beaches, and wildlife, Sri Lanka is a gem for tourism – the high-end tourists, in particular – but, at the same time, the question crops up: how come lots of big spenders visit the Maldives, and the Maldives have no nightlife, wildlife, etc.?

The big spenders, I’m told, visit the Maldives for total relaxation…to check out the beaches and the beautiful resorts, and that’s because they seek exclusivity, luxury, and relaxation.

They’re drawn to stunning beaches, high-end resorts, privacy and exclusivity, world-class amenities (spas, fine dining), unique experiences (sunset cruises, snorkeling).

And, guess what! Anant Ambani, son of Indian businessman Mukesh Ambani, and his wife Radhika Merchant, have arrived in the Maldives for a holiday.

Ambani’s Boeing 737 private jet landed in the Maldives on Saturday (17) and they are currently staying at Waldorf Astoria Maldives Ithaafushi’s private island.

The Ambani family has previously spent holidays in the Maldives. Last year, other members of the family spent the Christmas and New Year period at Waldorf Astoria Maldives Ithaafushi.

In fact, even singer Madonna went to the Maldives, a few years ago, for a $32,000-a-week Maldives holiday, with her family – cycling, sunset picnics on private beaches, infinity pools, luxury spas, etc.

Madhuri Dixit’s cooking scene in Sri Lanka

In early 2020, Bollywood actress Madhuri Dixit visited Sri Lanka for a family vacation, during which she explored local culture, nature, and cuisine.

She took a local cooking class during her visit, which, she later mentioned, was helpful during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown.

Dixit described a tour of a local tea factory as “intricate and interesting”.

Perhaps, we should introduce Tea Plantations Retreats – High-end bungalows in tea estates with tea-tasting sessions.

Dixit’s trip also included visits to scenic spots in the mountains.

No doubt, Sri Lanka’s got the natural beauty, rich culture, and warm hospitality but we need to package it into luxury experiences that big spenders crave; Think boutique hotels, private villas, and curated experiences.

We should tap more into this luxury relaxation vibe – maybe we could add some more sparkle by introducing Gourmet Food Trails: Exclusive culinary tours with private chefs, wine tastings, and farm visits; Festival Experiences: VIP access to Esala Perahera or Vesak festivals with cultural performances; Island Hopping: Luxury yacht cruises to untouched islands, like Pigeon Island or coral reefs; Adventure Sports: Private surfing lessons in Arugam Bay or hot air balloon rides over Ella.

I believe Sri Lanka could become the ultimate luxury destination if the SLTDA works diligently towards that goal.

Continue Reading

Trending