Walking through Pettah market in Colombo, I have noticed something both obvious and troubling. Shop after shop sells bags, shoes, electronics, even sarees, and yet all shops are owned and run by men. Even businesses catering exclusively to women, like jewelry stores and bridal boutiques, have men behind the counter. This is not just my observation but it’s a reality where most Sri Lankans have observed as normal. What makes this observation more important is when we examine the demographics where women population constitute approximately 52% of Sri Lanka’s population, but their representation as business owners remains significantly low. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2023 report, Sri Lanka’s Total Early Stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate for women is just 8.2%, compared to 14.7% for men.

Despite of being the majority, women are clearly underrepresented in the entrepreneurial aspect. This mismatch between population size and economic participation create a question that why aren’t more women starting ventures? The answer is not about capability or intelligence. Rather, it’s deeply in social and cultural barriers that have been shaping women’s mindsets for generations. From childhood, many Sri Lankan girls are raised to believe that their primary role is as homemakers.

In families, schools, and even universities, the message has been same or slightly different, woman’s success is measured by how well she manages a household, not by her ability to generate income or lead a business. Financial independence is rarely taught as essential for women the way it has been for men. Over time, this messaging gets internalised. Many women grew up without ever being encouraged to think seriously about ownership, leadership, or earning their own money. These cultural influences eventually manifest as psychological barriers as well.

Years of conditioning have led many skilled women to develop what researchers call “imposter syndrome”, a persistent fear of failure and feel that they don’t deserve success kind of feeling. Even when they have the right skills and resources, self-doubt holds them back. They question whether they can run a business independently or not. Whether they will be taken seriously, whether they are making the right choice. This does not mean that women should leave their families or reject traditional roles. But lack of thinking in a confident way and make bold decisions has real consequences. Many talented women either never start a business or limit themselves to small, informal ventures that barely survive. This is not about men versus women. It’s about the economic cost of underutilising 52% of the population. If our country is genuinely serious about sustainable growth. we must build an inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem through confidence building programs, better finance access to women, and a long term societal mindset shift. Until a young girl walking through Pettah can see herself as a future shop owner rather than just a customer, we will continue to waste our country’s greatest untapped resource.

Harinivasini Hariharasarma
Department of Entrepreneurship
University of Sri Jayewardenepura

Some essential points made to indicate its future in Power Generation

The hard facts are that:

1) Coal supplies cannot last for more than 70- 100 years more at most, with the price rising as demand exceeds supply.

2) Reactor grade Uranium is in short supply, also with the price rising. The cost is comparable to burning platinum as a fuel.

3) 440 standard Uranium reactors around the world are 25-30 years old – coming to the end of their working life and need to be replaced.

4) Climate Change is increasingly making itself felt and forecasts can only be for continuing deterioration due to existing levels of CO2 being continuously added to the atmosphere. It is important to mention the more serious problems associated with the release of methane gases – a more harmful gas than CO2 – arising from several sources.

5) Air pollution (ash, chemicals, etc.) of the atmosphere by coal-fired plants is highly dangerous for human health and should be eliminated for very good health reasons. Pollution created by India travels to Sri Lankans by the NE monsoon causing widespread lung irritations and Chinese pollution travels all around the world and affects everybody.

6) Many (thousands) of new sources of electric power generation need to be built to meet increasing demand. But the waste Plutonium 239 (the Satan Stuff) material has also to be moved around each country by lorry with police escort at each stage, as it is recovered, stored, processed and formed into blocks for long term storage. The problem of security of transport for Plutonium at each stage to prevent theft becomes an impossible nightmare.

The positive strengths to Thorium Power generation are:

1) Thorium is quite abundant on the planet – 100 times more than Uranium 238, therefore supplies will last thousands of years.

2) Cleaning or refining the Thorium is not a difficult process.

3) It is not highly radioactive having a very slow rate of isotope decay. There is little danger from radiation poisoning. It can be safely stored in the open, unaffected by rain. It is not harmful when ingested.

4) The processes involved with power generation are quite different and are a lot less complex.

5) Power units can be quite small, the size of a modern detached house. One of these can be located close to each town, thus eliminating high voltage cross-country transmission lines with their huge power losses (up to 20%).

6) Thorium is ‘fertile’ not fissile: therefore, the energy cycle has to be kick-started by a source of Neutrons, e.g., fissile material, to get it started. It is definitely not as dangerous as Uranium.

7) It is “Fail – Safe”. It has walk-away safety. If the reactor overheats, cooled drain plugs unfreeze and the liquid drains away to storage tanks below. There can be no “Chernobyl/ Fukoshima” type disasters.

8) It is not a pressurized system; it works at atmospheric pressure.

9) As long as reactor temperatures are kept around 600 oC there are little effects of corrosion in the Hastalloy metal tanks, vessels and pipe work. China, it appears, has overcome the corrosion problem at high temperatures.

10) At no stage in the whole chain of operations is there an opportunity for material to be stolen and converted and used as a weapon. The waste products have a half- life of 300 years, not the millions of years for Plutonium.

11) Production of MEDICAL ISOTOPE Bismuth 213 is available to be isolated and used to fight cancer. The nastiest cancers canbe cured with this Bismuth 213 as Targetted Alpha therapy.

12) A hydrogen generation unit can be added.

 This information obtained from following YouTube film clips:

1) The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor – what Fusion wanted to be…

2) An unbiased look at Molten Salt Reactors

3) LFTR Chemical Processing by Kirk Sorensen

 Thorium! The Way Ahead!

Priyantha Hettige

There are three key issues regarding foreign degrees:

Recognition: Is the awarding university recognized by our UGC?

Authenticity: Is the degree genuine or bogus?

Quality: Is it a standard, credible qualification?

1. The Recognition Issue (UGC Role)

The UGC addresses the first issue. If a foreign university is listed in the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook or the International Handbook of Universities, the UGC issues a letter confirming that the university is recognized. However, it is crucial to understand that a recognized university does not automatically imply that every degree it issues is recognized.

2. The Authenticity Issue (Employer Role)

The second issue rests with the employer. It is the employer’s responsibility to send a copy of the foreign degree to the issuing university to get it authenticated. This is a straightforward verification process.

3. The Quality Assurance Gap

The third issue

—the standard and quality of the degree—has become a matter for no one. The UGC only certifies whether a foreign university is recognized; they do not assess the quality of the degree itself. 

This creates a serious loophole. For example:

Does a one-year “top-up” degree meet standard criteria?

Is a degree obtained completely online considered equivalent?

Should we recognize institutions with weak invigilation, allowing students to cheat?

What about curricula that are heavy on “notional hours” but light on functional, practical knowledge?

What if the medium of instruction is English, but the graduates have no functional English proficiency?

Members of the UGC need to seriously rethink this approach. A rubber-stamp certification of a foreign university is insufficient. The current system ignores the need for strict quality assurance. When looking at the origins of some of these foreign institutions (Campuchia, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Sudan..) the intentions behind these “academic” offerings become very clear. Quality assurance is urgently needed. Foreign universities offering substandard degrees can be delisted.

M. A. Kaleel Mohammed
757@gmail.com 
( Retired President of a National College of Education)