Connect with us

Features

The Executive Presidency as JRJ saw it

Published

on

(Excerpted from Men and Memories by JR Jayewardene)

(The elected Executive Presidency was adopted in Sri Lanka in 1978. The original idea was mine and there is controversy about it in Sri Lanka now. I explained the Constitution in this lecture delivered in July 1991.)

The first suggestion to introduce the Executive Presidency system of Government in Sri Lanka was made by me while I was a Minister in the Dudley Senanayake Government of 1965-1970, in a speech to the Science Students Association of the Colombo University in December 1966. Some of the remarks I made then were as follows:

In some countries, the executive is chosen directly by the people and is not dependent on the legislature during the period of its existence, for a specified number of years. The new French Constitution is a combination of the British and the American systems. Such an executive is a strong executive, seated in power for a fixed number of years, not subject to the whims and fancies of an elected legislature; not afraid to take correct but unpopular decision because of censure from its parliamentary party. This seems to me a very necessary requirement in a developing country faced with grave problems such as we are faced with today.

The next occasion I raised this questions was when I was in the Opposition. Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government was considering amending the Constitution, to introduce the Republican Constitution of 1972. I suggested to the United National Party Working Committee that we put forward our views supporting the Executive Presidential system at the Constituent Assembly. The Party did not agree. But Dudley Senanayake who did not support it, stated that we must remember that the most powerful country in the world today, America, has attained that stature under an Executive Presidential system.

On July 2, 1971, at the Meeting of the Constituent Assembly, I was permitted to propose that we adopt the Executive Presidential system in place of the Westminster model. R. Premadasa, who was in the Opposition with me, seconded the proposal. We received no support and the motion was defeated.

One reason for adopting the Presidential system was the instability that was attached to a government under the Westminster type of Constitution. Let us look at our own country since we attained independence in 1948.

At the General Election of 1947, no party obtained an overall majority. The UNP under D.S. Senanayake had the largest number of members and was invited by the Governor to form a government which he did. He was able to carry on his work through a parliamentary majority which had the support of 21 Independent members, who called the tune. The Independents could defeat the government at any time by voting against its proposals. The support of the Independents was obtained largely through the influence and stature that D.S. Senanayake wielded as “Father of the Nation” and one chiefly responsible for obtaining freedom from the British.

On his (D.S. Senanayake’s) death in March 1952, Dudley Senanayake, the new Prime Minister, called for a General Election within a month and he was returned with a two-thirds majority. However, there was much trouble within the Government Parliamentary Party. A few Cabinet Ministers combined together to make it difficult for Dudley Senanayake to govern.

As a result of the resignation of Dudley Senanayake in 1953, Sir John Kotelawala became the Prime Minister. He too, facing trouble from within the party, called for elections in February 1956, fifteen months before the life of the Parliament was over.

S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike formed a government with the aid of other parties, after the 1956 elections. He found it difficult to maintain the government as several parties that had helped him to form a coalition government were pulling in various directions. Resort to a long prorogation did not help. His death in September 1959 deepened the crisis and Parliament was dissolved soon after his death by his successor W. Dahanayake, after a regime that lasted three and a half months.

As a result of this dissolution, a ‘Hung Parliament’ was elected in April 1960. Dudley Senanayake leading the UNP had the largest number of members in the House but did not have a majority in Parliament. Being defeated on the Throne Speech debate, he dissolved Parliament.

Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike’s Party had the largest number of members in the June 1960 elections and in December 1964, after a long prorogation which did not help, the government was defeated and she dissolved Parliament before her term was over in 1965.

The 1965 April elections put Dudley Senanayake in office with a majority in Parliament and he was able to govern the country,, for the full period from 1965 to 1970. It was the first occasion since independence in 1948 that a political party was able to govern the country for a full period of five years.

Mrs. Bandaranaike won the 1970 General Election, this too with the help of several other parties and she formed a coalition government. She extended her period of five years which ended in 1975 by another two years with the help of all the coalition members. As some of the coalition members left soon after, she also decided to go to the electorate and dissolved Parliament in 1977.

In the 1977 July elections, the UNP was returned with a five sixths majority and I became the Prime Minister. With the consent of the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Group, we introduced the Executive Presidential system of government in the Constitution Bill of 1978, a few months after the government was formed in July-August 1977. The Bill was passed in Parliament by a two thirds majority, after a Parliamentary Committee of all parties considered the Draft Constitution Bill at public sittings.

In the Westminster form of government which we had followed from 1947 to 1972 and as a Republic from 1972 to 1977, the executive power lies in the Parliament and is exercised through the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. The Prime Minister is chosen only if he has a majority of members in the Legislature and can command their support. If he loses that support in the United Kingdom, the monarch can request him to resign and call upon another member to be the Prime Minister, or dissolve Parliament.

With slight amendments, this is the system adopted by most of the dependencies of the UK now free, and the self-governing dominions. We too had a similar Constitution though we became a Republic in 1972.

The Executive Presidency was followed in the USA and later in France, under President De Gaulle. The founders of the American Constitution, after they defeated the British, made the President elected by the whole country, the executive authority, and the Legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, both elected, the Legislative Authority. The President could choose his Cabinet from any American citizen, except a member of the Legislature.

An Independent Judiciary; the power of the Legislature vis-a-vis the President, which enabled it to act as a check on Presidential power, and an Independent Press, were the checks and balances which made the Constitution work democratically.

The French Constitution of De Gaulle followed the same pattern with a few differences. For example, the President had to choose his Cabinet from elected members of the Legislature and once they were chosen they had to resign their seats.

The Constitution maintained continuity while effecting change. Some countries had written constitutions, some were governed by conventions and some had none. The USA, France, Sri Lanka, India and many countries had written constitutions. The UK was an example of a country having no written constitution but governed by consent, conventions and ad hoc laws. Some had no constitutions. It was better that they did not have because they were governed by Dictators and under Military Authority.

Sri Lanka was a monarchy under Asian dynasties, Sinhalese and Dravidian, till 1815; and Western till 1972. It was till then one of the oldest monarchies in the world, having an unbroken history since 600 BC, from King Vijaya to Queen Elizabeth II, when we became a Republic in 1972.

From 1815 till 1931, all executive authority was exercised by the Governor on behalf of the monarch. In 1931, the Donoughmore Constitution created the Executive Committee system and the Legislature performed two functions-legislative functions as a State Council as it was called, and executive functions by the State Council through Executive Committees to which its Members were elected by the Council. The Ministers were the elected Chairmen of these Committees. The State Council and all its members were elected by universal franchise. The Sri Lankans were the first people in Asia to enjoy this privilege.

In 1947, under the Soulbury Constitution, the Westminster Constitution was introduced, where following the British pattern the British Minister who led the majority in the Legislature was appointed as such by the Governor General.

In February 1948, Sri Lanka was given the status of a Dominion by an Independence Act introduced in the British House of Commons and she became a Free and Independent Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In 1972, after the Constituent Assembly had met and deliberated and accepted a new Constitution, Ceylon was made a Republic, but the Westminster model was retained.

In February 1978, a complete change took place with the executive power vested in a President elected by the whole country with a 50 per cent majority and legislative power being vested in the elected Legislature.

The 1978 Constitution had been tailor-made for a democracy. Let us examine its provisions under the heading made famous by the American President Abraham Lincoln’s speech in 1863, opening the memorial to the dead, commemorating the decisive victory of the Federal forces at Gettysburg. He defined Democracy as “a government of the People; by the People; for the People”.

Chapter 1, Sec. 3, proclaims the sovereignty of the People and Sec. 4 states how it is exercised; (a) the legislative power by Parliament consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum; (b) the executive power by the President of the Republic elected by the People; (c) the judicial power by Parliament through Courts, etc. created and established or recognized by the Constitution or created and established by law. This Section also refers to fundamental rights and the franchise.

The Cabinet of Ministers shall consist of the President as the Head, and the Prime Minister and Ministers from among the Members of Parliament, (Chapter VIII, 5.43 and 5.44.) The Sections dealing with the sovereignty of the people and certain Fundamental Rights cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a Referendum.

Similar approval is necessary for legislation to extend the term of office of the President or the duration of Parliament for over six years. This is a unique feature for even if the whole Parliament votes in favour of such an extension, unless approved by the people at a Referendum, it does not become law.

I think no democratic nation in the world has this unique power given to the people by its legislature. It was with this power that the people extended the period in office of the Parliament elected in 1977 by six years. All previous extensions for example in 1975, were by parliamentary approval only, or by an Order-in-Council before freedom.

The government is clearly based on an elected President, with executive powers, responsible to Parliament as Head of an elected Cabinet, chosen from Parliament; charged with the direction and control of the government; and collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament (Chapter VIll).

Many interesting questions for discussion can arise on an interpretation of the sections dealing with the Cabinet of Ministers and their executive powers. Do they derive them as agents of the Executive President or with power vested in them when they are charged under S.43(1) with the direction and control of the government? I leave this question for constitutional experts to decide.

To complete the part dealing with sovereignty of the People, the Independence of the Judiciary is vital. While the Judiciary is clearly stated as exercising the judicial power of the people, they do so through courts, tribunals and institutions that are created by Parliament. Their independence is secured in various ways spelled out from Sections 107 to 117.

Appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are by the President by warrant under his hand. They shall not be removed unless the majority in Parliament so address the President to remove them. Their salaries, once determined by Parliament, shall not be reduced after appointment. Judges of the High Court are also appointed by the President and are subject to disciplinary control of the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.

All other judges are appointed by the Judicial Service Commission which consists of the Chief Justice and two other judges of the Supreme Court. Disciplinary action is also taken by them.

Under the previous Constitution of 1972, all the minor Judiciary appointments were made by the Cabinet of Ministers. This Constitution attempts as far as humanly possible to create conditions for the Judiciary to be independent; the rest is in the hands of the Judges themselves, “who must be men of courage, men of wisdom”.

There are other sections of the Constitution which deal with Buddhism (Chap. II), Language (Chap.IV), and Citizenship (Chap.V); also with Superior Courts (Chap.XVI), Parliamentary Commissioner (Chap. XIX), Emergency Laws S.15 & 16 and (Chap. XVIII).

A government of the people and by the people, is adequately provided for and protected. Only through approval by the people at a Referendum can these provisions be amended or taken away democratically.

It should be mentioned, however, that fundamental rights may be temporarily restricted in the interests of national security, racial and religious harmony, national economy and a few other reasons mentioned in Chapter III, Section 15.

The power to make regulations under the Public Security Ordinance which can overrule, amend or suspend the operation of the provisions of any law except the provisions of the Constitution, is dealt with in Chapter (XVIII). Within 14 days of the Proclamation of an Emergency, Parliament must be informed and approve it, see (Chapter XVIII, Section 155(6).

No earlier Constitution required the approval of Parliament for the Declaration of an Emergency or the operation of Emergency Laws.

The emergence of a multi-party system so essential for a democracy is made possible by the inclusion among the “Fundamental Rights” to every citizen of Freedom of Speech, Publication, Assembly, Trade Union rights, etc. In section 14(1). The part dealing with “for the people” is also not forgotten.

In Chapter VI-S.27 to 29, these are enumerated. I need cite’ only one Section S. 27(2). If it is possible to fully implement these economic and social policies, it must bring peace and prosperity, but terrorism and other forms of violence are a hindrance. Also it must be remembered that from June 1960 to 1964 and 1970 to 1977, we had governments following Communist principles which even the Soviet Union has now abandoned. Recovery from these policies had begun from 1977-1983 with the Free Market Policy and other policies laid-down in the Constitution when terrorism reared its head and hit us like a tornado from 1983 onward.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Tasks for the South in current world disorder

Published

on

Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) can reach up to 300km (186 miles) and are tough to intercept due to their high speed

The decision by the Biden administration to arm Ukraine with long range missiles, hitherto not supplied to the latter, would undoubtedly further escalate and compound the Ukraine conflict. The move is likely to receive a like reaction from the Russian authorities, provided effective measures are taken by the world community to resolve the bloodletting in the Ukraine through a negotiated settlement.

US long range missiles would go some distance in meeting Ukraine’s defence needs but considering that the bolstering of Ukraine’s military capability would not bring any short or medium term relief to the suffering people of the Ukraine, it is open to question whether the Biden administration did right at this juncture through its decision on long range missile supplies.

Besides, the measure would not help in deescalating international tensions stemming from the Ukraine war, since we are bound to see a further intensification of the spiraling violence in Ukraine and its adjacent region.

However, it should be also plain to see that the Ukraine situation has worldwide security implications in view of comments by the Russian authorities to the effect that the decision on long range missiles would represent NATO’s ‘direct participation’ in the Ukraine conflict. Considering that the provision of the missiles could be seen by the Russian side as a ‘direct participation’ of NATO in the war, the world has no option at present but to merely hope fervently that further indiscretions would not be committed by the West and Russia in the Ukraine theatre that would raise the possibility of a full-blown regional war. Needless to say, in such a case international security would be further compromised.

There is an urgent need for good sense on the part of both sides to the conflict. Even as this is being written, the news is that Ukraine has unleashed some of the missiles into Russian territory. Ukraine could very well be motivated to use the missiles as a deterrent measure but given that Russia is unlikely to step back any time soon from the divisive course it has adopted in the Ukraine, the security situation in Eastern Europe could be seen as heading for increasing volatility and uncertainty.

The incoming Donald Trump administration has indicated that it would be working towards a kind of win-win solution in the Ukraine but the challenge before it would be to concede some of Russia’s territorial demands while ensuring Ukraine’s total sovereignty and self-respect. This would prove a Gordian Knot of sorts considering Russia’s obduracy thus far.

Besides, Ukraine’s security would need to be guaranteed. How would Trump assure Ukraine on this score and withhold from it vital weaponry which the latter sees as essential for its future security? This too would prove a knotty negotiating point.

Even on the Middle Eastern front, such dilemmas loom for the incoming Trump administration. A carefully worded statement by a UN Special Committee on the Middle East quite rightly states that the violence inflicted by the Israeli state on the Gaza is ‘consistent with characteristics of genocide’ and no time should be lost by pro-peace sections to bring the blood-letting to an immediate halt.

However, total peace and stability cannot be achieved in the Middle East without ensuring Israel’s continued security. This requirement is usually overlooked or does not come in for sufficient mention by those sections of the international community that take on themselves to scrutinize and comment on the Middle East situation. Going forward, the Trump administration would need to take on this complex challenge of meeting the needs of the Palestinian people while ensuring Israel’s legitimate right to survive and thrive as an inviolable state. Besides, the administration would need to breathe new life into the ‘Two State’ solution and render it workable.

It would accrue to the benefit of the Ukraine and the Middle East if Trump could convince the Putin regime of the need to help de-escalate the relevant conflicts and work towards negotiated solutions in both theatres. The ideal situation would be for the total membership of the UN Security Council to be united in working towards a de-escalation of the mentioned wasting conflicts. However, at present, the major states within the UNSC do not see eye-to-eye on these questions and this renders peace-making difficult.

In this exacting situation the global South would need to examine the possibility of exerting itself to the maximum to bring about an end to the wasting conflicts in focus. Right now, the global South is both wide ranging and fluid. Some decades back, this was not the case. Formations such as NAM and the G77 gave it a more or less definitive identity. Today, the mentioned bodies are almost non-existent.

However, in a vital sense the South exists because the causes which were espoused by organizations such as NAM are by no means irrelevant. For example, the challenge of keeping an equidistance between conflicting major powers, remains for the world’s powerless.

Likewise, poverty is continuing to be widespread in the South. It is true that one cannot find a country today that has not gone in for market reforms but even in the ‘success stories’ of the South, such as India, poverty remains starkly. For the majority of the South’s countries, market reforms have not ended poverty. On the contrary, the chasm between the rich few and the poor many has widened alarmingly.

Accordingly, the causes that gave the global South an identity and a mission remain. The challenge at hand for the South is to urgently regroup and to continue to champion the causes it once did. Although in a traditional sense Non-alignment does not exist, to consider one issue area, the need grows by the day for the poor to continue to steer clear of the big powers but to exist with them with cordiality. Such cordiality is Non-alignment creatively re-interpreted.

Accordingly, the Non-aligned Movement needs to be revived because its relevance has not eroded fundamentally. Major powers of the South, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, for example, need to consider coming together and giving leadership to the world’s poor and powerless.

The voice of a vigorously regrouped and revived South cannot be ignored in international politics because it possesses the numbers. Such numbers would continue to carry weight in the forums of the world that count in the vital matter of ushering a measure of international peace and security.

These are seemingly ambitious enterprises for the South but they need to be undertaken because a Non-aligned Southern bloc would carry more credibility in the world’s theatres of conflict and war and be accepted as a genuine peace maker in contrast to the big powers of the East and West and their alliances, who would be distrusted by conflicting sides on account of their partialities and divisive agendas.

Clarification

By an inadvertent error it was mentioned in this column last week, (See ‘Timely theatrical exploration of Middle East Conflict’, The Island of November 14th, 2024, page 4), that the Rohingyas were driven out of their land by ‘Bangladesh’s military rulers’. The statement should stand corrected to read: by ‘Myanmar’s military rulers.’ The error is regretted.

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden gem in Los Angeles

Published

on

Glam Scene

Patrick Rutnam, is a Sri Lankan-American actor, born in Los Angeles, in the USA. His film debut was in the action-thriller ‘A Common Man’, co-starring with Ben Kingsley. He has also co-starred in the HBO Series ‘Ballers’ with Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson.

Dirk Tissera, Founder, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of The ANCHORMAN, Canada, had a chat with Patrick Rutnam, and this is how it all went…

GIVE US A SMALL BACKGROUND OF YOUR LIFE, EDUCATION, SCHOOL, MUSIC, AND ACTING:

I was born and raised in Los Angeles, CA. Specifically the San Fernando Valley, in North Hollywood. I went to High School at an All-Boys Catholic School, called Crespi Carmelite High School, in Encino, where I met some of my best friends at that Catholic institution. I then went on to further studies at New York University, Tisch School of the Arts, earning a Bachelor of Fine Arts, and studying Drama within the Atlantic Theatre Company. I was exposed to acting through my father’s (George Rutnam) love of the movies and music. We watched a lot of westerns and classic cinema growing up, and his influences blended into the subconscious of my brother and me. The music that ran through our household were those of the 60s/70s, lots of Elvis, the Beatles, Cat Steven, Billy Joel, CCR, Cream, and Sly and The Family Stone, to name a few.

*  HOW AND WHEN DID YOU GET INTO THE MUSIC AND ACTING SCENE?

When I was kid, we would take trips to Universal City Walk to see movies. And on one occasion, I really wanted my parents to take me to see ‘Toy Story’ when it first hit theaters. I was adamant about seeing that film. All my friends at school were talking about it. It was the only thing that mattered to me at that time. I remember my father deciding against ‘Toy Stor’ and buying tickets for ‘Goldeneye.’ I was extremely disappointed and threw a tantrum, crying, etc., the sort of tantrum that would cause kids to think that life is over. I went into the screening of ‘Goldeneye’ as an unhappy camper, fresh tears still pouring out of my eyes. Then walks out Pierce Brosnan, in the opening sequence of ‘Goldeneye.’ My eyes dried up faster than Bond could pull the trigger. Something changed in me, and I knew my life would never be the same. I wanted to be Pierce Brosnan. I even changed my hairstyle to copy him. At times, when I’m feeling particularly delusional, I still think I look like Pierce Brosnan. I knew from then on, I wanted to play. And that spark has sat with me throughout elementary school plays, high school Shakespeare, NYU training, Off-Off Broadway NY theatre, film and TV Production…and, to date, where I sit here reflecting on where I’ve been and what lies ahead.

*  IN THE MOVIE ‘A COMMON MAN’ WHAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE LIKE TO ACT NEXT TO BEN KINGSLEY?

Ben Kingsley is a consummate professional. It was amazing to watch him take ownership of a role and bring it to life. He would wake up in the wee hours of the morning while shooting and live every step of his life in support of the work. It was truly inspiring to see such work ethic. And what we see on screen reflects that. I really took notice when a particular line of action didn’t feel natural to him. He would bring attention to it and find a way to grab the truth of the moment.

The scene now…Gavin, dad George and Patrick

ALSO IN THE SERIES ‘HIDDEN POCKETS,’ HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE TITLE? AND WHOSE IDEA WAS IT? WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON COMPLETING THIS SERIES?

‘Hidden Pockets’ came about upon the passing of Anthony Bourdain (American celebrity chef, author, and travel documentarian). I was deeply saddened by such a raw remarkable soul losing his voice in this world. And around the time of his passing, I was taking multiple trips to Sri Lanka, seeing things most people never thought existed. It was then that I realized we should capture one of those trips and document the discovery of parts of the world unseen to the outside eye. Even local Sri Lankans were shocked at the hidden spots and peoples we would find on these visits. I took my love and admiration for Anthony Bourdain’s style and combined it with my love of discovery. A “Pocket” is defined as a place within a bag or garment that can safely store valuables. Well, the places and peoples we discovered on our journey were truly valuable, not just to Sri Lanka, but to humanity. And they were often “Hidden” out of plain sight. Thus, the name ‘Hidden Pockets.’ There’s been renewed interest in airing the pilot episode in Sri Lanka, and as a part of Airline Entertainment Content. There was interest by a development creative at CNN as well. I’m open to taking ‘Hidden Pockets’ in the direction where it seems to find the most momentum.

WHEN DID YOU START YOUR FREIGHT-FORWARDING JOB WITH YOUR DAD’S BUSINESS?

My brother and I often joke that Master Forwarding is my Dad’s first child. He started in in 1980 with a focus on white glove logistics support, and even though it has had its ups and downs, like any business, it continues to run strong to this day, because of its DNA. I grew up in this industry, because he would always take us to work when he needed to attend to something. I fondly remember eating lots of Jack-in-the-Box Tacos and watching him treat every client and shipment with the utmost care. He would tell me, “I may not be a doctor, but I treat every ORDER like a patient. It’s my job to make sure each ORDER is taken care of, no matter the challenge, like a DOCTOR who takes care of his patients.” I grew up filing files away at the office and continue to support the family business in many ways, most notably in making sure we conduct ourselves with the new tools available in technology. It’s a fine line to make sure we use technology to support our service-oriented workflow.

*  TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR INTERESTS IN LIFE?

I love music, film, and all forms of artistic expression. I also love reading Non-Fiction. Right now, I’m reading Al Pacino’s memoir, ‘Sonny Boy’.

WHAT KIND OF INFLUENCE HAS YOUR DAD AND MUM HAD ON YOUR LIFE ?

I owe my personality and emotionality to both my parents. My mother was Miss Sri Lanka in 1981, and I’m so proud of her humble and modest nature. I’ve never met anyone else with such a high moral resolve, and I still marvel at her strength. It’s hard to put into words the effect that my father has had on my life. He’s been that supportive rock, and continues to believe in me, at times when I don’t believe in myself. To put his influence into words would not do him justice.

WHAT KIND OF MUSIC DO YOU LIKE AND WHAT INSTRUMENTS DO YOU PLAY, BESIDES GUITAR?

I really love all types of music, but my favourites tend to be acoustic singer/songwriter tunes. Cat Stevens, Neil Young, Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews, Billy Joel, Young the Giant, Michael Kiwanuka come to mind right now. But the playlist is ever-changing. I’m currently digging this indie rock group centered on two female vocalists, called ‘Lucius’. They’ve got a special sound that really speaks to my energy.

ARE YOU DATING ANYONE NOW AND WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO SETTLE DOWN AND START A FAMILY?

Dirk Tissera: Founder,
Publisher and Editor-in-
Chief of The ANCHORMAN,
Canada

Not dating anyone at present. I’ve honestly been focused on my career more than ever, but I’m certainly open to someone. I’ve been sort of a late bloomer as it comes to dating, so it took some time for me to figure out what I want. I’m a searcher, and I know that special someone is out there. Once that is sorted out, I would be open to starting a family. In the meantime, I’m okay with being known as the ‘COOL UNCLE’.

HOW OFTEN DO YOU VISIT SRI LANKA, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE?

I tend to go once or twice a year, but, definitely, at least once a year, to spend time with my mother and family out there. Sri Lanka has always had the most soulful people in the world. There’s a certain love and care amongst its people that feels pure. Even though Sri Lanka has carried a historical weight of poor governance, nothing can change the character of those that live there. Let’s hope this new direction will create a rising tide, lifting all boats. In terms of cultural output, Sri Lanka has an excellent musical scene, and a film community that is making huge strides. Pretty soon, you’ll see more and more Sri Lankans in the global mainstream.

*  WHAT IS YOUR ULTIMATE DREAM IN LIFE ?

To express myself, as creatively as possible, as an artist, both in film and music. Hopefully such expressions will lead to success. And hopefully such successes will lead to inspiring others to do the same. Ultimately, I would love to gain enough attention, security, and success as an artist, so that I can build a production company bringing more risk-taking artists and content to the world.

Continue Reading

Features

A healthy Smoothie…

Published

on

Hey, I decided to do something different this week…a recipe for Papaya and Ginger Smoothie.

You will need 1/2 cup papaya chunks, 1/2 banana, 01 teaspoon grated ginger (or ginger powder), 1/2 cup coconut water and 01 tablespoon chia seeds.

Peel and chop the papaya into small chunks. Peel the banana and break it into smaller pieces. Grate the Ginger: If using fresh ginger, peel and grate about a teaspoon. If using ginger powder, measure 01 teaspoon.

Add the papaya chunks, banana, grated ginger, coconut water, and chia seeds to a blender and blend until smooth: Blend on high until the mixture is smooth and creamy. If needed, add more coconut water to adjust the consistency.

Pour the smoothie into a glass and enjoy immediately.

Benefits:

Papaya: Rich in vitamin A, antioxidants, and enzymes like papain, which help support skin health by promoting collagen production and reducing wrinkles. The enzymes also aid digestion.

Ginger: Known for its anti-inflammatory and metabolism-boosting properties, ginger can help reduce bloating, improve digestion, and support weight loss by increasing thermogenesis (fat burning).

Banana: Provides a natural source of potassium, which supports heart health and helps maintain healthy blood pressure levels.

Coconut Water: Hydrates the body and replenishes electrolytes, helping to maintain proper fluid balance.

Chia Seeds: Packed with fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, and antioxidants, chia seeds support digestion, help stabilize blood sugar levels, and keep you feeling full longer, aiding in weight management.

Continue Reading

Trending