Connect with us

Features

Research and Development in Crisis: Structural Failures and Economic Consequences in Sri Lanka – Part I

Published

6 days ago

on

Research and Development (R&D) constitutes the intellectual and technological foundation upon which modern economies are built. Nations that invest strategically in R&D consistently outperform those that rely primarily on resource extraction, low-wage labour, or import-driven consumption. For Sri Lanka, a country with limited natural resources, a small domestic market, and high vulnerability to external shocks, knowledge-driven development is not merely desirable but indispensable. R&D underpins advances in agriculture, livestock production, healthcare, renewable energy, industrial manufacturing, and digital technologies sectors that directly affect national resilience and social wellbeing.

Despite this reality, Sri Lanka’s development trajectory has not sufficiently prioritised R&D as a central pillar of economic planning. Innovation is frequently invoked in policy speeches and national plans, yet it remains peripheral in budget allocations and institutional reform. Research is often treated as an academic exercise rather than a strategic national investment. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality has left the R&D ecosystem fragile, fragmented, and poorly integrated with industrial and development objectives.

The consequences of neglecting R&D extend far beyond universities and laboratories. Weak research capacity undermines food security by limiting local solutions to human health, animal health, crop productivity, and climate adaptation. It constrains industrial competitiveness by forcing dependence on imported technologies and inputs. It erodes foreign exchange stability through import substitution failure and export underperformance. Ultimately, the absence of a strong R&D foundation compromises Sri Lanka’s long-term sovereignty, economic independence, and capacity for inclusive growth.

Chronic Underfunding of Research in Sri Lanka

One of the most persistent and structurally damaging constraints on R&D in Sri Lanka is chronic underfunding. National expenditure on research remains far below global and regional benchmarks, even when compared with countries at similar income levels. While advanced economies invest between two and four percent of GDP in R&D, Sri Lanka’s allocation remains marginal, fragmented across ministries, and vulnerable to fiscal tightening during economic crises. This signals to researchers and investors alike that innovation is not a national priority.

The inadequacy of funding manifests in multiple ways at institutional level. Competitive research grants are few in number, small in scale, and often delayed in disbursement, disrupting research timelines and experimental continuity. Laboratories struggle to maintain even basic functionality due to shortages of reagents, consumables, spare parts, and technical staff. Capital-intensive research particularly in biotechnology, veterinary science, engineering, and medical sciences becomes nearly impossible without external funding.

Over time, chronic underinvestment has normalised low expectations within the research community. Researchers are compelled to design projects around what is financially feasible rather than what is scientifically necessary or nationally relevant. Ambitious, multidisciplinary, and long-term research agendas are abandoned in favour of modest, low-risk studies that fit within constrained budgets. This adaptation to scarcity, while understandable, ultimately limits innovation depth, global competitiveness, and societal impact.

Impact on Human Capital and Research Continuity

The funding crisis in R&D has had a profound and lasting impact on human capital development in Sri Lanka. Young academics, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists find it extraordinarily difficult to establish sustainable research programmes. Without reliable funding, access to modern facilities, or institutional support, many abandon active research soon after completing postgraduate training. This results in a generation of academically qualified but research-inactive faculty.

This environment fuels a silent yet continuous brain drain. Talented researchers seek opportunities abroad where research ecosystems are stable, predictable, and adequately resourced. Unlike visible migration waves, this loss is gradual and often unnoticed, yet its cumulative effect is devastating. The departure of skilled researchers weakens mentorship capacity, disrupts research groups, and erodes institutional memory essential for long-term scientific advancement.

Even researchers who remain in the system operate under constant uncertainty. The inability to plan multi-year projects discourages international collaboration and deters high-quality postgraduate students. Doctoral and master’s research becomes fragmented, delayed, or abandoned altogether. Over time, this instability undermines the continuity of national research programmes and weakens Sri Lanka’s capacity to respond to emerging challenges such as climate change, disaster management, engineering breakthroughs zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, emerging diseases, and food system disruptions.

Patent Generation Without Commercialisation

Sri Lankan universities and public research institutes generate a steady stream of innovative ideas, prototypes, formulations, and process improvements. These innovations arise primarily from publicly funded research, postgraduate theses, and problem-driven investigations in agriculture, health, and industry. However, the overwhelming majority fail to progress beyond the laboratory or pilot scale, resulting in minimal societal or economic return on national research investment.

Patent filing itself remains limited due to high costs, weak institutional incentives, and inadequate access to intellectual property (IP) expertise. Many researchers have limited familiarity with patenting procedures, while most institutions lack dedicated, professionally staffed patent or technology transfer offices with a strong commercial orientation. Even when patent applications are submitted, the patent examination process is often excessively slow, with initial feedback from relevant authorities commonly taking several months to years or longer. For underfunded or time-bound research projects, this delay creates a critical disconnect between innovation and protection.

In several documented cases, pre-screening results, examiner comments, or requests for amendments are received only after the funded project period has ended. At this stage, research teams frequently lack financial resources to undertake additional experiments, refine claims, conduct validation studies, or engage legal support required to respond effectively to patent office feedback. Consequently, potentially valuable inventions are abandoned, allowed to lapse, or inadequately protected, not due to lack of scientific merit but because of procedural and funding misalignment.

Even when patents are granted, ongoing costs related to maintenance, prosecution, and enforcement quickly become prohibitive in the absence of sustained institutional or government support. Commercialisation pathways remain weak or fragmented. Technology transfer offices, where they exist, are typically understaffed and under-resourced, with limited expertise in licensing negotiations, IP valuation, market assessment, or venture creation. As a result, much intellectual property remains dormant, or is disclosed prematurely through academic publication, rendering it unprotectable. Collectively, these challenges represent a systemic failure to translate publicly funded research outputs into tangible economic and industrial value, undermining the role of R&D as a driver of national development.

Absence of a National Innovation-to-Market Strategy

Sri Lanka lacks a coherent and coordinated national strategy to translate research outputs into marketable products and services. Innovation policies remain fragmented across ministries, funding agencies, and institutions, with little alignment between research priorities and industrial needs. There is no integrated pipeline linking laboratory research, pilot production, regulatory approval, market entry, and scale-up. Early-stage commercialization support is particularly weak. Risk-sharing mechanisms that could encourage private sector participation such as matching grants, innovation vouchers, or public–private partnerships are largely absent or unsupported. Researchers are often expected to become entrepreneurs without training, capital, or institutional backing. This unrealistic expectation results in high failure rates and discourages future innovation attempts.

Without state-backed incubation and protection, new technologies are exposed prematurely to open-market competition. Imported alternatives, often subsidised and mass-produced, quickly displace local innovations before they reach maturity. This systemic exposure discourages both researchers and investors, reinforcing a cycle in which innovation is generated but never sustained.

Failure of Post-Commercialisation Sustainability

Even when locally developed R&D products successfully reach commercial production, sustainability remains elusive. Local innovators face structural disadvantages, including high input costs, limited access to affordable credit, and weak distribution networks. Brand recognition is minimal, and marketing resources are scarce, particularly for research-origin products emerging from universities or public institutes.

In contrast, imported products benefit from economies of scale, long-established supply chains, and often hidden subsidies from their countries of origin. These products can be sold at prices below local production costs, irrespective of quality differentials. The playing field is fundamentally unequal, yet local producers are expected to survive without transitional protection. Without temporary safeguards such as targeted tariffs, public procurement preferences, or time-bound subsidies, locally developed products rarely survive beyond their initial market entry. This repeated pattern of post-commercialisation failure sends a clear signal to researchers: even successful innovation does not guarantee viability. Over time, this discourages applied research and reinforces dependence on imports.

Furthermore, the absence of structured post-commercialisation support such as scale-up financing, market linkage facilitation, and regulatory fast-tracking means that innovators are effectively abandoned once initial production begins. Institutional responsibility for innovation often ends at “commercial launch,” with no agency accountable for ensuring market survival or competitive maturation. In such an environment, failure is systemic rather than entrepreneurial, reflecting policy neglect rather than product inadequacy.

Low-Cost Imports and Market Distortion

The Sri Lankan market has become increasingly saturated with low-cost imported goods, particularly from India and China. These imports span multiple sectors, including agriculture inputs, animal feed, pharmaceuticals, machinery, and consumer goods. While lower prices provide immediate relief to consumers facing declining purchasing power, they simultaneously distort the domestic market by undercutting locally produced alternatives that operate under higher compliance, labor, and production standards.

The dominance of low-cost imports discourages domestic investment in R&D-driven production. Local producers who attempt to innovate face a paradox: higher-quality, research-based products often cost more to produce, yet the market overwhelmingly rewards the cheapest option. In such an environment, innovation becomes a commercial liability rather than an advantage. Over time, this erodes incentives for quality improvement, standard compliance, and technological upgrading.

Market distortion is further aggravated by weak enforcement of quality standards. Imported products are rarely subjected to rigorous post-market surveillance, allowing inferior or inconsistent-quality goods to circulate freely. The long-term consequences ranging from reduced productivity to biosecurity risks are externalised, while local producers bear the full cost of compliance. This imbalance undermines the sustainability of domestic R&D and production ecosystems.

Government to Government Economic Cooperation and Producer Vulnerability

Recent government-to-government economic cooperation between Sri Lanka and neighbouring countries have been promoted as a mechanism to stabilise supply chains and reduce consumer prices. From a short-term macroeconomic perspective, such arrangements may alleviate inflationary pressures and ease foreign exchange constraints. However, their impact on domestic producers, particularly those dependent on R&D-driven value addition, has been profoundly adverse.

The animal feed sector illustrates this vulnerability clearly. Until a few years ago, Sri Lanka restricted the importation of certain feed ingredients from nearby countries due to legitimate concerns regarding disease transmission, contamination, and quality variability. These restrictions supported local feed manufacturers who invested in quality control, formulation research, and biosecurity. Today, liberalised imports have flooded the market with cheaper alternatives, rendering many local operations economically unviable.

This shift has transferred risk from the state to producers and farmers. While imports reduce immediate costs, they expose livestock systems to long-term vulnerabilities related to animal health, productivity, and disease outbreaks. The absence of compensatory support for local producers reflects a policy imbalance that prioritises short-term consumer benefit over long-term sectoral sustainability.

Quality Standards Versus Cost Obsession

Public policy in Sri Lanka has increasingly equated affordability with efficiency, often at the expense of quality and safety. This cost-obsessed approach fails to recognise that low upfront prices can mask substantial downstream costs. In sectors such as agriculture, livestock, and health, compromised quality can result in reduced productivity, increased disease burden, and higher long-term expenditures.

Cheaper inputs, particularly in animal production systems, may reduce feed or medication costs in the short term but can impair growth rates, fertility, immunity, and product quality. These hidden costs are rarely quantified in policy discussions. Farmers and producers, under economic pressure, often have little choice but to opt for cheaper inputs, even when aware of potential risks.

Without strict enforcement of quality standards and scientifically informed import controls, Sri Lanka risks institutionalizing a race to the bottom. R&D-based solutions, which inherently prioritise quality, consistency, and long-term performance, cannot survive in a policy environment that values cost alone. Sustainable development requires recalibrating policy frameworks to balance affordability with quality assurance.

Fiscal Policy Instability and Its Impact on Innovation

Frequent changes in fiscal policy have created a climate of uncertainty that is fundamentally incompatible with innovation-driven growth. Sudden adjustments to tax rates, import duties, subsidies, and procurement guidelines disrupt long-term planning and deter investment in research-based enterprises. Innovation requires predictability, yet Sri Lanka’s fiscal environment remains volatile and reactive.

For researchers and innovators, fiscal instability translates into heightened risk. Changes in import duties on research equipment, reagents, or raw materials can abruptly inflate project costs. Shifts in tax incentives may render business models unviable overnight. This uncertainty discourages private sector collaboration with research institutions and undermines confidence in long-term innovation investments.

At a systemic level, fiscal instability signals a lack of strategic commitment to R&D. When innovation-related policies change frequently, stakeholders perceive them as temporary or politically expedient rather than structural. This perception weakens institutional trust and reinforces a short-term survival mindset among researchers and entrepreneurs.

Need for Strategic Tariff Protection for Local Products

Strategic tariff protection is essential for nurturing domestically developed products during their formative years. This approach does not constitute economic isolationism but reflects a well-established principle of development economics: infant industries require temporary protection until they achieve scale, efficiency, and competitiveness. Sri Lanka’s failure to adopt such measures has repeatedly undermined R&D-based enterprises.

Imported goods that are locally producible through research-driven innovation should carry higher tariff margins, particularly when domestic alternatives meet acceptable quality standards. Such differentiation creates policy space for local producers to stabilize production, recover R&D investments, and refine processes. Without this buffer, domestic innovations are exposed to predatory competition before they mature.

History offers clear evidence that all successful industrial economies employed strategic protection at critical stages of development. Sri Lanka’s reluctance to do so reflects ideological inconsistency rather than economic necessity. A calibrated, time-bound tariff strategy would significantly enhance the survival prospects of locally developed technologies. (To be continued)

Prof. M. P. S. Magamage is a senior academic and former Dean of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. He has also served as Chairman of the National Livestock Development Board of Sri Lanka and is an accomplished scholar with extensive national and international experience. Prof. Magamage is a Fulbright Scholar, Indian Science Research Fellow, and Australian Endeavour Fellow, and has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA. He has published both locally and internationally reputed journals and has made significant contributions to research commercialisation, with patents registered under his name. His work spans agricultural sciences, livestock development, and innovation-led policy engagement. E-mail: magamage@agri.sab.ac.lk

by Prof. MPS Magamage
Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Rebuilding the country requires consultation

Published

8 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

A positive feature of the government that is emerging is its responsiveness to public opinion. The manner in which it has been responding to the furore over the Grade 6 English Reader, in which a weblink to a gay dating site was inserted, has been constructive. Government leaders have taken pains to explain the mishap and reassure everyone concerned that it was not meant to be there and would be removed. They have been meeting religious prelates, educationists and community leaders. In a context where public trust in institutions has been badly eroded over many years, such responsiveness matters. It signals that the government sees itself as accountable to society, including to parents, teachers, and those concerned about the values transmitted through the school system.

This incident also appears to have strengthened unity within the government. The attempt by some opposition politicians and gender misogynists to pin responsibility for this lapse on Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, has prompted other senior members of the government to come to her defence. This is contrary to speculation that the powerful JVP component of the government is unhappy with the prime minister. More importantly, it demonstrates an understanding within the government that individual ministers should not be scapegoated for systemic shortcomings. Effective governance depends on collective responsibility and solidarity within the leadership, especially during moments of public controversy.

The continuing important role of the prime minister in the government is evident in her meetings with international dignitaries and also in addressing the general public. Last week she chaired the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah. The composition of the task force once again reflects the responsiveness of the government to public opinion. Unlike previous mechanisms set up by governments, which were either all male or without ethnic minority representation, this one includes both, and also includes civil society representation. Decision-making bodies in which there is diversity are more likely to command public legitimacy.

Task Force

The Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka overlooks eight committees to manage different aspects of the recovery, each headed by a sector minister. These committees will focus on Needs Assessment, Restoration of Public Infrastructure, Housing, Local Economies and Livelihoods, Social Infrastructure, Finance and Funding, Data and Information Systems, and Public Communication. This structure appears comprehensive and well designed. However, experience from post-disaster reconstruction in countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami suggests that institutional design alone does not guarantee success. What matters equally is how far these committees engage with those on the ground and remain open to feedback that may complicate, slow down, or even challenge initial plans.

An option that the task force might wish to consider is to develop a linkage with civil society groups with expertise in the areas that the task force is expected to work. The CSO Collective for Emergency Relief has set up several committees that could be linked to the committees supervised by the task force. Such linkages would not weaken the government’s authority but strengthen it by grounding policy in lived realities. Recent findings emphasise the idea of “co-production”, where state and society jointly shape solutions in which sustainable outcomes often emerge when communities are treated not as passive beneficiaries but as partners in problem-solving.

Cyclone Ditwah destroyed more than physical infrastructure. It also destroyed communities. Some were swallowed by landslides and floods, while many others will need to be moved from their homes as they live in areas vulnerable to future disasters. The trauma of displacement is not merely material but social and psychological. Moving communities to new locations requires careful planning. It is not simply a matter of providing people with houses. They need to be relocated to locations and in a manner that permits communities to live together and to have livelihoods. This will require consultation with those who are displaced. Post-disaster evaluations have acknowledged that relocation schemes imposed without community consent often fail, leading to abandonment of new settlements or the emergence of new forms of marginalisation. Even today, abandoned tsunami housing is to be seen in various places that were affected by the 2004 tsunami.

Malaiyaha Tamils

The large-scale reconstruction that needs to take place in parts of the country most severely affected by Cyclone Ditwah also brings an opportunity to deal with the special problems of the Malaiyaha Tamil population. These are people of recent Indian origin who were unjustly treated at the time of Independence and denied rights of citizenship such as land ownership and the vote. This has been a festering problem and a blot on the conscience of the country. The need to resettle people living in those parts of the hill country which are vulnerable to landslides is an opportunity to do justice by the Malaiyaha Tamil community. Technocratic solutions such as high-rise apartments or English-style townhouses that have or are being contemplated may be cost-effective, but may also be culturally inappropriate and socially disruptive. The task is not simply to build houses but to rebuild communities.

The resettlement of people who have lost their homes and communities requires consultation with them. In the same manner, the education reform programme, of which the textbook controversy is only a small part, too needs to be discussed with concerned stakeholders including school teachers and university faculty. Opening up for discussion does not mean giving up one’s own position or values. Rather, it means recognising that better solutions emerge when different perspectives are heard and negotiated. Consultation takes time and can be frustrating, particularly in contexts of crisis where pressure for quick results is intense. However, solutions developed with stakeholder participation are more resilient and less costly in the long run.

Rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, addressing historical injustices faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, advancing education reform, changing the electoral system to hold provincial elections without further delay and other challenges facing the government, including national reconciliation, all require dialogue across differences and patience with disagreement. Opening up for discussion is not to give up on one’s own position or values, but to listen, to learn, and to arrive at solutions that have wider acceptance. Consultation needs to be treated as an investment in sustainability and legitimacy and not as an obstacle to rapid decisionmaking. Addressing the problems together, especially engagement with affected parties and those who work with them, offers the best chance of rebuilding not only physical infrastructure but also trust between the government and people in the year ahead.

 

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

PSTA: Terrorism without terror continues

Published

8 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

When the government appointed a committee, led by Rienzie Arsekularatne, Senior President’s Counsel, to draft a new law to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), as promised by the ruling NPP, the writer, in an article published in this journal in July 2025, expressed optimism that, given Arsekularatne’s experience in criminal justice, he would be able to address issues from the perspectives of the State, criminal justice, human rights, suspects, accused, activists, and victims. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), produced by the Committee, has been sharply criticised by individuals and organisations who expected a better outcome that aligns with modern criminal justice and human rights principles.

This article is limited to a discussion of the definition of terrorism. As the writer explained previously, the dangers of an overly broad definition go beyond conviction and increased punishment. Special laws on terrorism allow deviations from standard laws in areas such as preventive detention, arrest, administrative detention, restrictions on judicial decisions regarding bail, lengthy pre-trial detention, the use of confessions, superadded punishments, such as confiscation of property and cancellation of professional licences, banning organisations, and restrictions on publications, among others. The misuse of such laws is not uncommon. Drastic legislation, such as the PTA and emergency regulations, although intended to be used to curb intense violence and deal with emergencies, has been exploited to suppress political opposition.

 

International Standards

The writer’s basic premise is that, for an act to come within the definition of terrorism, it must either involve “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or be committed to achieve an objective of an individual or organisation that uses “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to realise its aims. The UN General Assembly has accepted that the threshold for a possible general offence of terrorism is the provocation of “a state of terror” (Resolution 60/43). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has taken a similar view, using the phrase “to create a climate of terror.”

In his 2023 report on the implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Secretary-General warned that vague and overly broad definitions of terrorism in domestic law, often lacking adequate safeguards, violate the principle of legality under international human rights law. He noted that such laws lead to heavy-handed, ineffective, and counterproductive counter-terrorism practices and are frequently misused to target civil society actors and human rights defenders by labelling them as terrorists to obstruct their work.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has stressed in its Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism that definitions of terrorist acts must use precise and unambiguous language, narrowly define punishable conduct and clearly distinguish it from non-punishable behaviour or offences subject to other penalties. The handbook was developed over several months by a team of international experts, including the writer, and was finalised at a workshop in Vienna.

 

Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023

A five-member Bench of the Supreme Court that examined the Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023, agreed with the petitioners that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was too broad and infringed Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and recommended that an exemption (“carve out”) similar to that used in New Zealand under which “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person” committed the wrongful acts that would otherwise constitute terrorism.

While recognising the Court’s finding that the definition was too broad, the writer argued, in his previous article, that the political, administrative, and law enforcement cultures of the country concerned are crucial factors to consider. Countries such as New Zealand are well ahead of developing nations, where the risk of misuse is higher, and, therefore, definitions should be narrower, with broader and more precise exemptions. How such a “carve out” would play out in practice is uncertain.

In the Supreme Court, it was submitted that for an act to constitute an offence, under a special law on terrorism, there must be terror unleashed in the commission of the act, or it must be carried out in pursuance of the object of an organisation that uses terror to achieve its objectives. In general, only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” should come under the definition of terrorism. There can be terrorism-related acts without violence, for example, when a member of an extremist organisation remotely sabotages an electronic, automated or computerised system in pursuance of the organisation’s goal. But when the same act is committed by, say, a whizz-kid without such a connection, that would be illegal and should be punished, but not under a special law on terrorism. In its determination of the Bill, the Court did not address this submission.

 

PSTA Proposal

Proposed section 3(1) of the PSTA reads:

Any person who, intentionally or knowingly, commits any act which causes a consequence specified in subsection (2), for the purpose of-

(a) provoking a state of terror;

(b) intimidating the public or any section of the public;

(c) compelling the Government of Sri Lanka, or any other Government, or an international organisation, to do or to abstain from doing any act; or

(d) propagating war, or violating territorial integrity or infringing the sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, commits the offence of terrorism.

The consequences listed in sub-section (2) include: death; hurt; hostage-taking; abduction or kidnapping; serious damage to any place of public use, any public property, any public or private transportation system or any infrastructure facility or environment; robbery, extortion or theft of public or private property; serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with, any electronic or automated or computerised system or network or cyber environment of domains assigned to, or websites registered with such domains assigned to Sri Lanka; destruction of, or serious damage to, religious or cultural property; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with any electronic, analogue, digital or other wire-linked or wireless transmission system, including signal transmission and any other frequency-based transmission system; without lawful authority, importing, exporting, manufacturing, collecting, obtaining, supplying, trafficking, possessing or using firearms, offensive weapons, ammunition, explosives, articles or things used in the manufacture of explosives or combustible or corrosive substances and biological, chemical, electric, electronic or nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, nuclear material, radioactive substances, or radiation-emitting devices.

Under section 3(5), “any person who commits an act which constitutes an offence under the nine international treaties on terrorism, ratified by Sri Lanka, also commits the offence of terrorism.” No one would contest that.

The New Zealand “carve-out” is found in sub-section (4): “The fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that such person (a) commits or attempts, abets, conspires, or prepares to commit the act with the intention or knowledge specified in subsection (1); or (b) is intending to cause or knowingly causes an outcome specified in subsection (2).”

While the Arsekularatne Committee has proposed, including the New Zealand “carve out”, it has ignored a crucial qualification in section 5(2) of that country’s Terrorism Suppression Act, that for an act to be considered a terrorist act, it must be carried out for one or more purposes that are or include advancing “an ideological, political, or religious cause”, with the intention of either intimidating a population or coercing or forcing a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

When the Committee was appointed, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka opined that any new offence with respect to “terrorism” should contain a specific and narrow definition of terrorism, such as the following: “Any person who by the use of force or violence unlawfully targets the civilian population or a segment of the civilian population with the intent to spread fear among such population or segment thereof in furtherance of a political, ideological, or religious cause commits the offence of terrorism”.

The writer submits that, rather than bringing in the requirement of “a political, ideological, or religious cause”, it would be prudent to qualify proposed section 3(1) by the requirement that only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or are carried out to achieve a goal of an individual or organisation that employs “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to attain its objectives should come under the definition of terrorism. Such a threshold is recognised internationally; no “carve out” is then needed, and the concerns of the Human Rights Commission would also be addressed.

 

by Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
President’s Counsel

Continue Reading

Features

ROCK meets REGGAE 2026

Published

8 hours ago

on

2026/01/13

By

JAYASRI: From Vienna, Austria

We generally have in our midst the famous JAYASRI twins, Rohitha and Rohan, who are based in Austria but make it a point to entertain their fans in Sri Lanka on a regular basis.

Well, rock and reggae fans get ready for a major happening on 28th February (Oops, a special day where I’m concerned!) as the much-awaited ROCK meets REGGAE event booms into action at the Nelum Pokuna outdoor theatre.

It was seven years ago, in 2019, that the last ROCK meets REGGAE concert was held in Colombo, and then the Covid scene cropped up.

Chitral Somapala with BLACK MAJESTY

This year’s event will feature our rock star Chitral Somapala with the Australian Rock+Metal band BLACK MAJESTY, and the reggae twins Rohitha and Rohan Jayalath with the original JAYASRI – the full band, with seven members from Vienna, Austria.

According to Rohitha, the JAYASRI outfit is enthusiastically looking forward to entertaining music lovers here with their brand of music.

Their playlist for 28th February will consist of the songs they do at festivals in Europe, as well as originals, and also English and Sinhala hits, and selected covers.

Says Rohitha: “We have put up a great team, here in Sri Lanka, to give this event an international setting and maintain high standards, and this will be a great experience for our Sri Lankan music lovers … not only for Rock and Reggae fans. Yes, there will be some opening acts, and many surprises, as well.”

Rohitha, Chitral and Rohan: Big scene at ROCK meets REGGAE

Rohitha and Rohan also conveyed their love and festive blessings to everyone in Sri Lanka, stating “This Christmas was different as our country faced a catastrophic situation and, indeed, it’s a great time to help and share the real love of Jesus Christ by helping the poor, the needy and the homeless people. Let’s RISE UP as a great nation in 2026.”

Continue Reading

Trending