Opinion

A not entirely united government opts to be hard line

Published

5 years ago

2021/02/17

By Harim Peiris

It is quite a feat for a powerful government to insult its own Prime Minster and party leader, but that is precisely what the SLPP succeeded in doing last week, when a carefully orchestrated measure to ease up the pressure on the Government through bringing Sri Lanka in line with the rest of the world on Covid-19 burials, went awry. The Prime Minister’s assurance to Parliament, to allow the burial of the Covid-19 dead, was welcomed in a tweet by the soon to visit, Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan. However, this was not implemented and instead was contradicted by junior state ministers of the Government. Since the forced cremation of the Covid-19 dead, against the wishes and religious beliefs of the bereaved families, is a uniquely Sri Lankan practice, in non-conformity with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, the issue is being closely watched and monitored not just locally but also globally. Accordingly, the Prime Minister’s assurance was widely welcomed. But clearly, he could not carry the day. It certainly seems the Prime Minister is not totally in charge of the government; shades of the previous Ranil Wickremesinghe premiership.

However, in the context of Sri Lanka’s system of government, this is only to be expected because especially post the 20th Amendment to our Constitution, the governing authority has been totally centralized in the hands of the executive President. Accordingly, one might reasonably expect that the president’s slightest wish is government writ. Therefore, it was quite surprising to note, a few weeks ago, when the nearly half a billion-dollar, foreign investment by India’s Adani Group in the Eastern Container Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo Port was to go ahead, this in a country that is starved of foreign exchange, that the President was seemingly very much on board. The President, quite correctly observed, at various fora, that international obligations cannot be unilaterally abrogated and more importantly that his government had negotiated terms where the Sri Lankan Government through the Sri Lanka Ports Authority would retain a majority stake and accordingly what was occurring was an investment into a minority stake in the ECT. This in the context of other such foreign investments with majority stakes, namely the Chinese Government’s CICT and the SAGT. However, quite surprisingly the President’s wishes to bring in the Indian private sector foreign investment did not quite carry the day inside the Government.

To cap quite a tumultuous first quarter for the Government, Minister Wimal Weerawansa, a leader of a minor political appendage of the ruling alliance, namely the National Freedom Front (NFF), stirred up a hornet’s nest in political circles, when he called for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to be given the leadership of the ruling party, rather than its current incumbent, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. The public call by Minister Weerawansa was met with the immediate demand by the ruling SLPP’s General Secretary, that the Minister both withdraw his statement and apologize for the same. Neither has happened and to the contrary the Minister has reiterated his stand. The call for a leadership change and that too between the president and the prime minister, was quite surprising because there was no reason for Minister Weerawansa to either be so public about a possible leadership role change in the Government or to be out of place by commenting on the affairs of a party he does not belong to. Leading as he does, his breakaway wing of the JVP, styled the National Freedom Front (NFF), a party which has the distinction of never yet having ever contested an election on its own but always in alliance with the Rajapaksa political party, first the UPFA and now its successor the SLPP.

A Government opting to be hardline

Next week the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), based in Geneva, will hold its 46th session, mostly in a virtual or online format and a country specific resolution on Sri Lanka, taking the government to task on our deteriorating human rights situation, will most likely pass. The Government is losing friends like India and alienating allies, like the 57 member nation, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). As political analysts have pointed out, the report by Human Rights High Commissioner and former two-term President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet focuses more on the new hardline policy being adopted since the election of November 2019. Policies, pronouncements and practices, which seemingly indicate a complete unwillingness to accommodate plurality, recognize diversity and defend democratic gains. The High Commissioner reports worrying signs of a government becoming increasingly authoritarian and militarized. The UNHRC report on Sri Lanka, namely A/HRC/46/20 in section 19, page 7 states “(i) militarization of civilian government functions, (ii) reversal of constitutional safeguards, (iii) political obstruction of accountability for crimes and human rights violations, (iv) majoritarian and exclusionary rhetoric (v) surveillance and obstruction of civil society and shrinking democratic space and (vi) new and exacerbated human rights concerns”. As if in a great hurry to confirm the above contentions by its actions, the Government having earlier rejected the report in toto, the Minister of Public Security withdrew the Special Task Force (STF) guard provided to TNA spokesman and leader in waiting, MA Sumanthiran for his participation and support to a massive anti-government march styled (P2P), from Pottuvil in the Eastern Province to Polligandy in the Northern Province, a not too subtle reference to the “responsibility to protect (R2P), the global political commitment adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005 to prevent or hold accountable for war crimes, prevent genocide, ethnic cleaning and crimes against humanity. The rationale given by the Minister was that MP Sumanthiran, a President’s Counsel, had violated court orders, which he denies doing. When the matter was raised by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, many speakers pointed out that alleged violations of court orders should be met with prosecutions in court and not the withdrawal of security. Now we await the Hon. Speaker’s ruling whether it is the threat assessment against the MP, which the Minister himself readily conceded or political servility to the wishes of the government, which determines state security for minority and opposition MPs. The world meantime from Geneva is watching.

As the government domestically disregards plurality, tolerance of democratic dissent and accommodation of diversity and isolates itself internationally, with severe repercussions for our export driven, tourism, foreign investment and worker remittance dependent, globally integrated economy, the possibility of seeing a course correction by the SLPP’s Rajapakse Administration, is rather remote. This does however position Opposition Leader, Sajith Premadasa and his SJB, as the sole alternative to the government’s ideology, of being the sole representatives of the Sinhala people.

(The writer served as Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2016 to 2017)

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Missing 52%: Why Women are absent from Pettah’s business landscape

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/23

Thilina Walpola

Pettah

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

Opinion

Molten Salt Reactors

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/23

Thilina Walpola

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

Opinion

Foreign degrees and UGC

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/23

Thilina Walpola

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)