Features
Wisdom in Political Insights: My talk with Mahathir Mohamad
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Before we dived into the world of politics, I was eager to learn how he managed his style and which fundamentals he followed to pursue the goal of the common good. I had the privilege of talking via zoom with none other than Mahathir Mohamad, a major force behind Malaysia’s take-off. Before he became an icon in the political arena, Mahathir was a physician, a graduate of the reputed King Edward VII College of Medicine in Singapore. I sought his wisdom on the enduring principles that guide a life and a profession.
As he leaned forward, his eyes reflecting the wisdom of a life well-lived, he shared, ‘If I may speak of my calling as a medical doctor, there is one cardinal principle that reigns supreme – the patient’s well-being. It’s not about profiting from others’ misfortunes but about tirelessly working towards healing. In my practice, I encountered countless individuals grappling with life’s myriad challenges.’
Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, a towering figure in Asian politics, held the office of Prime Minister for an astounding 24 years, from 1981 to 2003 and later from 2018 to 2020. He revealed the philosophy that has been his compass throughout this remarkable journey.
‘I lead a life of moderation, avoiding the extremes. For instance, when I eat, I do so in moderation, sufficient for sustenance. My mother’s wisdom echoes in my ears – when food becomes overly delightful, it’s time to stop. Moderation, in all aspects of life, is key. Never veer to the extremes,’ he advised.
Explaining his longevity, he shared, ‘I abstain from smoking and drinking, and I refrain from overindulgence in food. I consume just what is necessary for my vitality.’
Turning to the subject of knowledge, he harked back to his foundational beliefs. ‘Knowledge has eternally held sway. The ancient Egyptians didn’t erect pyramids through divine incantations, nor did the waters flow in the irrigation canals of the Indus Civilization by the ignorance of their laws. Knowledge has perpetually been the font of power and prosperity.’
Mahathir stands as one of the senior-most active politicians in Asia, if not the world, having seen the ascents and declines of countless leaders. When I asked about those whom he admired and those who presented challenges, he said:
‘There are leaders I greatly admire and tried to emulate in problem-solving. Take Nelson Mandela, who endured over 27 years in captivity yet emerged without a trace of bitterness, working hand in hand with his former captors to rebuild South Africa. He exemplified selflessness, prioritizing society over self. Leaders of this caliber endure suffering for the greater good of humanity.’
As for the more trying encounters he encountered during his tenure, he gracefully refrained from singling them out, understanding the potential consequences it could have on individuals and their families.
Q: ‘What, in your view, are the defining qualities of a true statesperson? How does one distinguish a genuine leader from someone who exploits racial or religious elements for power?’
A: ‘A true statesperson is one who places the world and society above personal interests. Even when faced with personal hurt, they remain committed to what is right and beneficial for the common citizen.’
Delving into the impact of nationalism on the process of nation-building, I sought Mahathir’s insights on the pivotal role of nationalism and how he harnessed this concept during his tenure as Malaysia’s leader, even in the face of contentious allegations regarding anti-Semitic rhetoric, favoritism towards the ethnic Malay majority, and the treatment of political opponents.
‘First and foremost, one must cultivate a deep love for one’s country. It’s the place where you were born, raised, and achieved your aspirations; essentially, it’s where your roots lie. This genuine love for one’s nation fosters a sincere desire to contribute to its development. When you hold authentic affection for your country, the thought of causing harm or tarnishing its reputation becomes inconceivable.
‘When individuals feel that their nation is capable of self-sustenance, it instills a sense of pride and responsibility. This sentiment, at its core, embodies the essence of true nationalism. Once a common goal is attained, there arises no inclination to harm the country.’
We then moved to Malaysia’s remarkable economic transformation during his leadership. In 1981, when he assumed office, Malaysia’s GDP stood at approximately 25 billion USD. Under his visionary stewardship, the nation’s GDP burgeoned to a staggering 110.2 billion USD. Many attribute this success to his leadership, despite its association with contentious policies. I asked what underlay this economic triumph.
‘To foster a nation’s growth, stability and peace are imperative. A nation beset by instability and racial tensions cannot thrive. In Malaysia, a diverse and multicultural country, my foremost task was to unite people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds to work together, thereby establishing social stability and peace. Once this foundation is laid, the path is paved for economic growth, attracting new investments, and enabling individuals from diverse fields to flourish professionally.’
On his interactions with Sri Lanka, a country he had visited many times, I couldn’t help but pose a question about how we went wrong compared to Malaysia and Singapore.
Q: ‘You’ve made several visits to Sri Lanka, with your last visit in 2014, when you launched various development projects. At one point, you and your political rival, the late Lee Kuan Yew, emphasized the importance of learning from Sri Lanka’s successes. However, today, Sri Lanka’s path diverges significantly from that of Malaysia and Singapore. What, in your opinion, went wrong in Sri Lanka?’
A: A country’s progress is greatly contingent on its leadership. If the leader is inept, unfocused on authentic national development, or lacks an understanding of what development model suits their nation, regression is inevitable. History is replete with examples of countries that once shone brightly but have since faded.
‘Some nations falter when leaders prioritize personal gain and well-being over the welfare of the nation. Consequently, regression becomes their destiny. The history of every country exhibits cycles of ups and downs, and change is an intrinsic part of a nation’s journey.’
Mahathir’s spirited political debates with the late Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore remain indelibly etched in the annals of history. In a book titled ‘Conversations with Mahathir Mohamad,’ he offered a glimpse into the subject saying, ‘The fact remains that he is a mayor of Singapore. This is something he doesn’t like. He wants to be big, you see, and he feels that we took away his opportunity to lead a real country.’ Conversely, Lee Kuan Yew referred to Mahathir as ‘a thoroughly destructive force. He is a very smart man, but his mentality is still stuck in the 1970s.’
I probed him on those years of political rivalry and the intricacies of their relationship. he recounted, ‘When Singapore merged with Malaysia, it was a nation struggling to find its feet. Emerging from British rule, it had encountered its share of challenges during that period. Lee Kuan Yew saw this merger as his chance to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. In Malaysia, he believed he could hold a substantial role, akin to a real Prime Minister, whereas in Singapore, he would be more like a mayor.
‘However, he soon discovered that Malaysia was not as welcoming as he had hoped. Ultimately, Malaysia expelled Singapore due to the disruptive political climate he had introduced. The then Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, decided that Singapore should no longer be part of Malaysia. Singapore, of course, thrived after its expulsion, but at that moment, Lee Kuan Yew believed he had lost a significant opportunity to become a Prime Minister, which is why he shed tears.’
Responding to Lee Kuan Yew’s characterization of him, he countered, ‘Well, everyone is entitled to their perspective. He viewed me as orthodox, and perhaps he wasn’t entirely wrong. I was deeply concerned about racial relations in Malaysia. We have three major ethnic groups, but their achievements were not on par. The Chinese community had made significant strides and seized opportunities post-independence, while the Malays struggled in business, despite being afforded similar opportunities. This disparity was a persistent obstacle to our nation’s development. My aim was to eliminate these disparities and drive the country toward true development. To some, my methods might have seemed orthodox, but my focus was squarely on bridging the ethnic divides.’
I inquired about reports suggesting that during his tenure as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he had made efforts to secure ASEAN membership for Sri Lanka but faced opposition from certain political quarters in other countries. I asked him to confirm the accuracy of these reports.
‘Indeed, ASEAN is a remarkable success story in the realm of regional cooperation, notably for its ability to reject war in the region for over six decades. While many other nations expressed interest in joining ASEAN, certain factors, such as geographical location, posed obstacles to their inclusion. The organization’s concern was that if it expanded too rapidly, it might become unwieldy. I believed Sri Lanka was a suitable candidate for ASEAN membership, transcending geographical differences. However, other member nations were hesitant to extend the invitation.’
Next we got on to his thoughts on the development of secondary leadership. Often, exceptional leaders, when they depart, leave a void that can lead to political polarization and division. I queried how he, drawing from his decades of political experience and wisdom, fostered secondary leadership in Malaysia and navigated the challenges along the way.
‘When you assume the role of Prime Minister, you wield immense power, and that power can be either a tool for personal gain or an instrument for national progress. I was acutely aware that if I used that power for personal purposes, I would tarnish my legacy and leave a stain on the nation’s history. Instead, I chose to focus on the nation’s development. For me, the enduring satisfaction came from witnessing the country’s growth. That was the only reward I sought, and it was the reward I received from the world through recognition of Malaysia’s development.’
‘During my first term as Prime Minister, which lasted for over 20 years, I realized that it was a lengthy tenure, and I was already in my seventies. I firmly believed that the key to our nation’s progress lay in nurturing a new generation of leaders. I advocated the notion that developing the nation was a prerequisite for individual growth. I encouraged my successors to follow the same path, with the aim of propelling Malaysia to developed nation status. However, once I stepped down from office, subsequent leaders pursued different agendas. They wrongly believed that during my tenure, I had misappropriated government funds, despite the facts pointing to the contrary. Consequently, they began to wield their power for personal interests, derailing the path we had charted since the early ’80s. This regression halted Malaysia’s growth.
This prompted me to re-enter politics. Subsequently, I once again assumed the role of Prime Minister. However, the political landscape had transformed. Certain political parties resorted to exploiting religious and ethnic divisions to disrupt the newly formed government, triggering a series of political crises and eroding political stability. In the past 60 years, we had experienced only four changes in government. However, after my departure in 2020, four different governments came to power, further exacerbating political and social instability.’
Curious about external influences, I asked if external parties played a role in perpetuating this instability. Dr. Mahathir acknowledged the possibility of some external elements but characterized the situation as a complex political crisis that would require time and effort to resolve.
Finally, I posed the question: What he considered to be his biggest mistake during his tenure as the longest-serving ruler in modern Malaysian history. He contemplated deeply and replied, ‘I believe that stepping down from the position of Prime Minister was a significant mistake. However, had I not done so, people would not have had the opportunity to see what kind of government they would get in my absence. It’s often during challenging times that we truly appreciate the value of a nation’s well-being. We must undergo difficult periods to realize that the prosperity of a country is not a permanent state.’
I finally sought Dr. Mahathir’s thoughts on the pressing issues that confront our world today. In this era of multiple crises – from global health emergencies to supply chain disruptions, debates surrounding multi-polarism versus Western hegemony, the rise of the Global South, and China’s aspirations to superpower status – I asked him to convey a message to the global community, one that promotes equity and dignity for all of humanity.
‘In the past, when conflicts arose among small principalities, strong leaders would unite these territories into larger nations, steering them towards development. That was the historical narrative. However, our world has changed significantly. Today, due to the ease of communication, we are not just neighbors with our immediate neighboring countries but with the entire world. This closeness brings with it shared challenges that demand a collective approach. In essence, we require a form of global governance.
‘We have seen attempts at this before, such as the League of Nations, which ultimately faltered. Then came the era of the United Nations, which, unfortunately, is also facing challenges. The United Nations, with its five veto-wielding powers, can sometimes be stymied by the interests of a few. Therefore, it is imperative for the world to forge a unified movement to tackle common global issues, including pandemics, the consequences of climate change, the growing global population, and more. Just as small principalities once came together to form nation-states, now nation-states must unite to create a global governance structure capable of addressing these shared problems.’
As a parting thought, Dr. Mahathir turned his attention to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. He observed, ‘Europeans still seem to contemplate resolving international conflicts through wars. They had allied with the Russians during World War II to combat Germany, and together they defeated Germany. However, immediately after victory, they designated Russia as a new enemy, leading to the establishment of NATO, focused squarely on Russia.
In response, Russia formed the Warsaw Pact, sparking a prolonged Cold War, which was a considerable waste of resources and time. When Russia eventually decided to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, NATO took a different path. Instead of dismantling itself, it bolstered its capabilities and invited former Warsaw Pact members to join, all directed against Russia. This inevitably fueled a series of conflicts, with the Ukraine conflict being a part of this larger narrative.’
He concluded with a resounding call for change, stating, ‘While NATO nations provide support to the war in Ukraine, it is the Ukrainian people who are fighting and suffering. Allowing Ukrainians to endure this conflict, with lives lost and their nation in ruins, is untenable. The mindset of resolving disputes through warfare must come to an end.’
At a time when misinformation spreads so easily—especially online—there’s a need for scientists to step in and bring accurate, evidence-based knowledge to the public. This is exactly what Dr. Ruchira Somaweera is doing with RuGoesWild, a YouTube channel that brings the world of field biology to Sri Lankan audiences in Sinhala.
“One of my biggest motivations is to inspire the next generation,” says Dr. Somaweera. “I want young Sri Lankans to not only appreciate the amazing biodiversity we have here, but also to learn about how species are studied, protected, and understood in other parts of the world. By showing what’s happening elsewhere—from research in remote caves to marine conservation projects—I hope to broaden horizons and spark curiosity.”
Unlike many travel and wildlife channels that prioritise entertainment, RuGoesWild focuses on real science. “What sets RuGoesWild apart is its focus on wildlife field research, not tourism or sensationalised adventures,” he explains. “While many travel channels showcase nature in other parts of the world, few dig into the science behind it—and almost none do so in Sinhala. That’s the niche I aim to fill.”
Excerpts of the Interview
Q: Was there a specific moment or discovery in the field that deeply impacted you?
“There have been countless unforgettable moments in my 20-year career—catching my first King cobra, discovering deep-diving sea snakes, and many more,” Dr. Somaweera reflects. “But the most special moment was publishing a scientific paper with my 10-year-old son Rehan, making him one of the youngest authors of an international peer-reviewed paper. We discovered a unique interaction between octopi and some fish called ‘nuclear-forager following’. As both a dad and a scientist, that was an incredibly meaningful achievement.”
Saltwater crocodiles in Sundarbans in Bangladesh, the world’s largest mangrove
Q: Field biology often means long hours in challenging environments. What motivates you to keep going?
“Absolutely—field biology can be physically exhausting, mentally draining, and often dangerous,” he admits. “I’ve spent weeks working in some of the most remote parts of Australia where you can only access through a helicopter, and in the humid jungles of Borneo where insects are insane. But despite all that, what keeps me going is a deep sense of wonder and purpose. Some of the most rewarding moments come when you least expect them—a rare animal sighting, a new behavioural observation, or even just watching the sun rise over a pristine habitat.”
Q: How do you balance scientific rigour with making your work engaging and understandable?
“That balance is something I’m constantly navigating,” he says. “As a scientist, I’m trained to be precise and data-driven. But if we want the public to care about science, we have to make it accessible and relatable. I focus on the ‘why’ and ‘wow’—why something matters, and what makes it fascinating. Whether it’s a snake that glides between trees, a turtle that breathes through its backside, or a sea snake that hunts with a grouper, I try to bring out the quirky, mind-blowing parts that spark curiosity.”
Q: What are the biggest misconceptions about reptiles or field biology in Sri Lanka?
“One of the biggest misconceptions is that most reptiles—especially snakes—are dangerous and aggressive,” Dr. Somaweera explains. “In reality, the vast majority of snakes are non-venomous, and even the venomous ones won’t bite unless they feel threatened. Sadly, fear and myth often lead to unnecessary killing. With RuGoesWild, one of my goals is to change these perceptions—to show that reptiles are not monsters, but marvels of evolution.”
Q: What are the most pressing conservation issues in Sri Lanka today?
“Habitat loss is huge,” he emphasizes. “Natural areas are being cleared for housing, farming, and industry, which displaces wildlife. As people and animals get pushed into the same spaces, clashes happen—especially with elephants and monkeys. Pollution, overfishing, and invasive species also contribute to biodiversity loss.”
Manta Rays
Q: What role do local communities play in conservation, and how can scientists better collaborate with them?
“Local communities are absolutely vital,” he stresses. “They’re often the first to notice changes, and they carry traditional knowledge. Conservation only works when people feel involved and benefit from it. We need to move beyond lectures and surveys to real partnerships—sharing findings, involving locals in fieldwork, and even ensuring conservation makes economic sense to them through things like eco-tourism.”
Q: What’s missing in the way biology is taught in Sri Lanka?
“It’s still very exam-focused,” Dr. Somaweera says. “Students are taught to memorize facts rather than explore how the natural world works. We need to shift to real-world engagement. Imagine a student in Anuradhapura learning about ecosystems by observing a tank or a garden lizard, not just reading a diagram.”
Q: How important is it to communicate science in local languages?
“Hugely important,” he says. “Science in Sri Lanka often happens in English, which leaves many people out. But when I speak in Sinhala—whether in schools, villages, or online—the response is amazing. People connect, ask questions, and share their own observations. That’s why RuGoesWild is in Sinhala—it’s about making science belong to everyone.”
‘Crocodile work’ in northern Australia.
Q: What advice would you give to young Sri Lankans interested in field biology?
“Start now!” he urges. “You don’t need a degree to start observing nature. Volunteer, write, connect with mentors. And once you do pursue science professionally, remember that communication matters—get your work out there, build networks, and stay curious. Passion is what will carry you through the challenges.”
Q: Do you think YouTube and social media can shape public perception—or even influence policy?
“Absolutely,” he says. “These platforms give scientists a direct line to the public. When enough people care—about elephants, snakes, forests—that awareness builds momentum. Policymakers listen when the public demands change. Social media isn’t just outreach—it’s advocacy.”
by Ifham Nizam
Bassist Benjy Ranabahu is overjoyed as his version of having his own band (for the second time) is gradually taking shape.
When asked as to how the name Inner Vision cropped up, Benjy said that they were thinking of various names, and suggestions were made.
“Since we have a kind of a vision for music lovers, we decided to go with Inner Vision, and I guarantee that Inner Vision is going to be a band with a difference,” said Benjy.
In fact, he has already got a lineup, comprising musicians with years of experience in the music scene.
Benjy says he has now only to finalise the keyboardist, continue rehearsing, get their Inner Vision act together, and then boom into action.
“Various names have been suggested, where the keyboard section is concerned, and very soon we will pick the right guy to make our vision a reality.”
Inner Vision will line-up as follows…
Anton Fernando
Benjy Ranabahu:
Ready to give music
lovers a new vision
(Lead guitar/vocals): Having performed with several bands in the past, including The Gypsies, he has many years of experience and has also done the needful in Japan, Singapore, Dubai, the Maldives, Zambia, Korea, New Zealand, and the Middle East.
Lelum Ratnayake
(Drums/vocals): The son of the legendary Victor Ratnayake, Lelum has toured Italy, Norway, Japan, Australia, Zambia, Kuwait and Oman as a drummer and percussionist.
Viraj Cooray
(Guitar/vocals): Another musician with years of experience, having performed with several of our leading outfits. He says he is a musician with a boundless passion for creating unforgettable experiences, through music.
Nish Peiris
Nish Peiris: Extremely talented
(Female vocals): She began taking singing, seriously, nearly five years ago, when her mother, having heard her sing occasionally at home and loved her voice, got her involved in classes with Ayesha Sinhawansa. Her mom also made her join the Angel Chorus. “I had no idea I could sing until I joined Angle Chorus, which was the initial step in my career before I followed my passion.” Nish then joined Soul Sounds Academy, guided by Soundarie David. She is currently doing a degree in fashion marketing.
And … with Benjy Ranabahu at the helm, playing bass, Inner Vision is set to light up the entertainment scene – end May-early June, 2025.
As politicians and economists continue to proclaim that the Sri Lankan economy has achieved ‘stability’ since the 2022 economic crisis, the country’s manufacturing sector seems to have not got the memo.
A few salient points need to be made in this context.
First, Sri Lankan manufacturing output has been experiencing a secular stagnation that predates external shocks, such as the pandemic and the Easter Attacks. According to national accounts data from UNIDO, manufacturing output in dollar terms has basically flatlined since 2012. Without a manufacturing engine at its core, it is no surprise that Sri Lanka has seen some of the lowest rates of economic growth during this period. (See graph)
Second, factory capacity utilisation still remains below pre-pandemic levels. Total capacity utilisation stood at 62% in 2024, compared to 81% in 2019. For wearing apparel, the country’s main manufactured export, capacity utilisation was at a meagre 58% in 2024, compared to 83% in 2019. Given the uncertainty Trump’s tariffs have cast on global trade, combined with the diminished consumer sentiment across the Global North, it is hard to imagine capacity utilisation recovering to pre-pandemic levels in the near future.
Third, new investment in manufacturing has been muted. From 2019 to 2024, only 26% of realised foreign investments in Board of Investment enterprises were in manufacturing. This indicates that foreign capital does not view the country as a desirable location for manufacturing investment. It also reflects a global trend – according to UNCTAD, 81% of new foreign investment projects, between 2020 and 2023, were in services.
Taken together, these features paint an alarming picture of the state of Sri Lankan manufacturing and prospects for longer-term growth.
What makes manufacturing so special?
A critical reader may ask at this point, “So what? Why is manufacturing so special?”
Political economists have long analysed the transformative nature of manufacturing and its unique ability to drive economic growth, generate technical innovation, and provide positive spillovers to other sectors. In the 1960s, Keynesian economist Nicholas Kaldor posited his famous three ‘growth laws, which argued for the ‘special place’ of manufacturing in economic development. More recently, research by UNIDO has found that 64% of growth episodes in the last 50 years were fuelled by the rapid development of the manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing profits provide the basis on which modern services thrive. London and New York could not have emerged as financial centres without the profits generated by industrial firms in Manchester and Detroit, respectively. Complex and high-end services, ranging from banking and insurance to legal advisory to logistics and transport, rely on institutional clients in industrial sectors. Meanwhile, consumer-facing services, such as retail and hospitality, depend on the middle-class wage base that an industrial economy provides.
Similarly, technologies generated in the manufacturing process can have massive impacts on raising the productivity of other sectors, such as agriculture and services. Indeed, in most OECD countries, manufacturing-oriented private firms are the biggest contributors to R&D spending – in the United States, 57% of business enterprise R&D spending is done by manufacturing firms; in China it is 80%.
It has become increasingly clear to both scholars and policymakers that national possession of industrial capacity is needed to retain advantages in higher value-added capabilities, such as design. This is because some of the most critical aspects of innovation are the ‘process innovations’ that are endemic to the production process itself. R&D cannot always be done in the comfort of an isolated lab, and even when it can, there are positive spillovers to having geographic proximity between scientists, skilled workers, and industrialists.
Produce or perish?
Sri Lanka exhibits the telltale signs of ‘premature deindustrialisation’. The term refers to the trend of underdeveloped countries experiencing a decline in manufacturing at levels of income much lower than what was experienced by countries that managed to break into high-income status.
Premature deindustrialisation afflicts a range of middle-income countries, including India, Brazil, and South Africa. It is generally associated with the inability of domestic manufacturing firms to diversify their activities, climb up the value chain, and compete internationally. Major bottlenecks include the lack of patient capital and skilled personnel to technologically upgrade and the difficulties of overcoming the market power of incumbents.
Reversing the trend of premature deindustrialisation requires selective industrial policy. This means direct intervention in the national division of labour in order to divert resources towards strategic sectors with positive spillovers. Good industrial policy requires a carrot-and-stick approach. Strategic manufacturing sectors must be made profitable, but incentives need to be conditional and based on strict performance criteria. Industrial can choose winners, but it has to be willing to let go of losers.
During the era of neoliberal globalisation, the importance of manufacturing was underplayed (or perhaps deliberately hidden). To some extent, knowledge of its importance was lost to policymakers. Karl Marx may have predicted this when, in Volume 2 of Das Kapital, he wrote that “All nations with a capitalist mode of production are, therefore, seized periodically by a feverish attempt to make money without the intervention of the process of production.”
Since the long depression brought about by the 2008 financial crisis, emphasis on manufacturing is making a comeback. This is most evident in the US ruling class’s panic over China’s rapid industrialisation, which has shifted the centre of gravity of the world economy towards Asia and threatened unipolar dominance by the US. In the Sri Lankan context, however, emphasis on manufacturing remains muted, especially among establishment academics and policy advisors who remain fixated on services.
Interestingly, between the Gotabaya Rajapaksa-led SLPP and the Anura Kumara Dissanayake-led NPP, there is continuity in terms of the emphasis on the slogan of a ‘production economy’ (nishpadana arthiakaya in Sinhala). Perhaps more populist than strictly academic, the continued resonance of the slogan reflects a deep-seated societal anxiety about Sri Lanka’s ability to survive as a sovereign entity in a world characterised by rapid technological change and the centralisation of capital.
Nationalist writer Kumaratunga Munidasa once said that “a country that does not innovate will not rise”. Amid the economic crises of the 1970s, former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike popularised a pithier exhortation: “produce or perish”. Aside from their economic benefits, manufacturing capabilities are the pride of a nation, as they demonstrate skill and scientific knowledge, a command over nature, and the ability to mobilise and coordinate people towards the construction of modern wonders. In short, it is hard to speak of real sovereignty without modern industry.
(Shiran Illanperuma is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and a co-Editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought. He is also a co-Convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com).
By Shiran Illanperuma
-
Business4 days agoDIMO pioneers major fleet expansion with Tata SIGNA Prime Movers for ILM
-
News3 days agoFamily discovers rare species thought to be extinct for over a century in home garden
-
Features6 days agoNipping the two leaves and the bud
-
Features6 days agoAvurudu celebrations … galore
-
Features5 days agoProf. Lal Tennekoon: An illustrious but utterly unpretentious and much -loved academic
-
Foreign News3 days agoChina races robots against humans in Beijing half marathon
-
News6 days agoCounsel for Pilleyan alleges govt. bid to force confession
-
Editorial4 days agoSelective use of PTA