Connect with us

Features

Athulathmudali – Premadasa tensions escalate and Lalith resigns

Published

on

Dealing with Ministers, even good Ministers is not trouble free. Issues sometimes get confounded due to the differences in the points of departure and overall outlook between Ministers and civil servants. Ministers are prone to the temptation of short term advantage, sometimes to the negation of long term credibility. Civil servants, on the other hand have been long in the system and developed important networks over the years with their colleagues.

The most important currency in transactions within this network was your personal standing and credibility. To the extent you had this, official interpersonal relations with your colleagues were quicker, more productive and pleasant. When you approached them on some important issue they did not question your bona fides or except in extremely rare instances, your judgement. Your track record spoke for itself.

In my own case, I have already related, how the then Secretary to the Treasury Mr. Chandi Chanmugam authorized the release of Rs. 300 million, just across the table when I described to him the necessity to rehabilitate the multi-purpose co-operative societies. I was then the Secretary to the Ministry of Food and Co-operatives. This was however only one instance within my experience. There were many others. I therefore regarded my credibility as my most valued asset and was very sensitive to even a remote possibility of it being tarnished.

It was in this context that I found the Minister’s (Mr. Athulathmudali’s) application for funds to the Treasury on some occasions somewhat embarrassing. When I talked to him about it, I found that he was doing so to please certain Trade Unions and other constituencies who were demanding certain benefits. Some of these applications were direct, by-passing the system. Officials in the Treasury began to ask me what was happening. I spoke to the Minister of the importance of maintaining Our credibility with theTreasury.

I pointed out that if this went on, we would find it difficult even to get important applications through. From the Minister’s point of view, he didn’t want to be seen to be saying no to some of these requests. If the Treasury turned down his recommendations, he himself was off the hook. Then it was not his fault. He could say that he recommended, but the Treasury turned it down. I urged serious reconsideration of this policy. The Treasury was getting to a point that they could not figure out what was serious and what was not.

The Minister listened to my advice, but merely said “We’ll see!” Things improved for a while thereafter and then again it started. Not long afterwards a file came down to me with another unorthodox request to be sent to the Treasury. This time I felt it important to state my position in plain language. Obviously I could not do so on the file which was a public document which would be seen by many. I therefore tore off a piece of paper from my note pad and wrote out a note to the Minister.

In it I recalled our previous conversations; emphasized the damage that was being caused; stated that at least my credibility was very important to me; and warned that if this went on it would be difficult for me to continue in the Ministry. I then sealed this in two envelopes, personally addressed it to him, wrote “strictly personal” on the cover, stapled it to the cover of the file and saw that it was hand delivered to him.

Days passed. I carried on my normal work and met the Minister at meetings. Neither he nor I said a word to each other on this subject. Sometime later, his private Secretary came to my room and with a puzzled look handed over my note to the Minister in the same envelope in which I had sent it, but opened and resealed. When I opened it, there was nothing written on it. It was clear that the Minister had opened and read my note and then sent it back to me without any comment That didn’t matter. All I wanted was for him to see it. Not long after this episode, however, other events of a serious nature occurred which led to the resignation of the Minister.

Mr. Athulathmudali’s resignation

As already recorded, relations between Mr. Athulathmudali and the President could have been best described as cool. Mr. Athulathmudali felt that the President was relentlessly trying to dig up something adverse or unsavoury about him. He felt that he was not being treated properly as an important Minister. He was getting into a frame of mind where he was becoming reluctant even to ask the President’s permission to travel abroad. He did not wish to be humiliated by a refusal.

The frustration the Minister was undergoing was seeping out from time to time. One day he told me “Surely when a man becomes President, he must have the capacity to rise above petty considerations, and be like a great father to all.” I suggested that he meet the President one to one and have a frank discussion on all matters. He didn’t think that it would work. But one day he seemed to have tried it. He told me that he told the President that he was still young and that he was in no hurry to play any role other than being a Minister until the President’s two terms of office were over.

“All I need to do is jog and keep myself fit” he had concluded. To this too, the response had been lukewarm. “I am not going to tolerate this constant humiliation,” he said. On another occasion he said, “Thank God you are my Secretary, otherwise I would have been finished.” He probably said this because he was aware that I was working with Mr. Paskaralingam behind the scenes to mitigate some of the problems and to resolve others that came up from time to time.

Mr. Paskaralingam whilst regretting some of the things that were happening, had also told the Minister that one positive feature was that the President had confidence in me. I was aware that Mr. Paskaralingam too was unhappy at the course of events and was doing whatever he could to mitigate problems. I was however not aware how far matters had gone until one morning in late August 1991, Mr. Athulathmudali telephoned in the morning and asked me to come to his private residence off Flower Road.

When I reached there at about 8.30 a.m. I realized at once that I had walked into a grave crisis situation. Mr. Gamini Dissanayake, Mr. G.M. Premachandra and others were there. Everyone looked tense and ill at ease. Vie Minister said that he had decided to resign. To my astonishment he added that they had taken steps to impeach the President . He said that he, Mr. Gamini Dissanayake and others were going to form a new party if it becomes necessary. A constitutional and political crisis of the first order were in the making.

To the great regret of everyone in the Ministry, Mr. Athulathmudali resigned as Minister on August 30, 1991. The President summoned all the Secretaries, Secretaries of Project Ministries and State Secretaries to an urgent meeting. He instructed us to be extra careful and diligent in running our Ministries. He said that he would deal with the political crisis. He did not want us to be distracted by it. He concluded by stating that he was a man well tempered by crises and the handling of them. This came out powerfully in the Sinhala words he used (“hondata themparadu una kenek”.) The atmosphere was tense and one of grave crisis.

Mr. Athulathmudali rang me and said that he would like to take formal leave of his officers in the Ministry. This was a legitimate request and I agreed. This decision, I had to take solely on my own responsibility. The government was in serious crisis. The President was in a position where he really couldn’t trust anybody. He did not know how many of his MPs and Ministers had signed the impeachment motion against him. This was with the Speaker of Parliament. The President had no access to it.

In this context, the other Ministers in the system were not even coming to office. They were too busy and preoccupied with urgent political matters. If I had asked any one of them about Mr. Athulathmudali’s request, they either would not have given a decision or advised me to play safe by refusing it. I therefore took the decision, knowing fully well that given the temper that the President was in and more particularly his burning anger against Mr. Athulathmudali, that perhaps my career was also coming to an end.

There were however, decencies to be observed. There were around 800 officers of all ranks and grades assembled on the ground floor at “Isurupaya” when Mr. Athulathmudali arrived in a private car. I now knew that more trouble was coming my way. Mr. Athulathmudali was going to address the staff. There were no Ministers present. In these circumstances, it would have been extremely churlish if I as Secretary did not speak on behalf of the Ministry and wish him well. But I had to utter these sentiments to someone who was spearheading an insurgency against the President, a President who was now an incensed and unforgiving one.

I was convinced in my own mind that this was the last speech that I was going to make in the public service, barring perhaps my own farewell speech, if indeed anyone dared to arrange a farewell for me. This was however, a duty I had to perform. I did not mince words. I spoke of Mr. Athulathmudali’s qualities both as a Minister and as a person, including his tolerance of different points of view, and his ability to take decisions quickly, his affability, his understanding and his commitment. On behalf of the Ministry, I wished him well for the future.

I did not know that there were newspaper reporters present. In any case it wouldn’t have mattered. The next day, some of my officers rushed into my room with the “Divaina,” newspaper. On page three of the paper was an account of the farewell function and a detailed verbatim report of my speech. I just could not quarrel with it. It was a brilliant report. The reporter was accurate to the last sentence and word. My officials were apprehensive about consequences. To the contrary I enjoyed a strange calm.

What had to be done was done and I was resigned to any consequence. I had crossed the Diyawanna if not the Rubicon. But nothing happened. Days passed. The political crisis passed through several phases. From time to time Neville Piyadigama, currently our Ambassador to Japan who was Additional Secretary to the President handling among other subjects, education, rang me to inquire whether there were any problems in the Ministry. My reply every time was “None whatever.”

At the very beginning of the crisis, I called up a meeting of all staff officers in the system and spoke to them of the necessity not to permit, political events to distract the Ministry from carrying out its national responsibilities. I reminded them that we were public servants and not politicians, and that whilst naturally we would be interested in what was going on, we needed to summon the discipline for it not to affect our work. I told them that it was our business to see that the Ministry ran without any hitch, until such time we had Ministers. I received one hundred percent support. It only confirmed my several previous experiences of what a marvelous-instrument the Sri Lanka Public Service was particularly when there was a crisis. Consistency of performance across the board in non crisis times was the problem.

(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, autobiography of MDD Pieris)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

on

I. The Constitutional Context

Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.

As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].

II. A Proposal for Reform

This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.

This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.

What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.

III. Governing Considerations of Policy

What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.

Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).

The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.

Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).

IV. Practical Constraints

Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.

A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.

Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.

If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.

This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.

V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?

If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.

VI. Conclusion

In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

Continue Reading

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

on

In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.

According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.

In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.

Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.

As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

on

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending