Yes, let’s fire away with homemade tips for my readers who keep asking me what to do when pimples crop up.

*  Honey and Cinnamon Spot Treatment:

Mix 01 teaspoon raw honey and ¼ tsp cinnamon. Dab only on pimples, leave 15-20 minutes, and then rinse with warm water. Do this at night, 02-03 times a week.

Honey kills bacteria, while cinnamon calms inflammation.

Gentle tip: Skip if your skin is super sensitive — cinnamon can tingle.

*  Ice Cube De-puffer:

Wrap an ice cube in clean cloth, press on the pimple for 30 seconds, remove after 30 seconds. Repeat 03-04 times.

Works best on those “why today?!” big, angry pimples.

* Aloe Vera and Turmeric Mask:

01 tablespoon fresh aloe vera gel and a pinch of turmeric. Apply a thin layer all over, or just on breakouts. After 15 minutes, rinse with cool water. Your skin will feel soothed instantly.

Aloe vera heals, while turmeric is anti-inflammatory.

By the way, don’t overdo turmeric or you’ll turn yellow for a bit (lol).

*  Green Tea Toner:

Brew strong green tea. Let it cool and pour into a spray bottle. Use as toner after washing face, 01-02 times daily. Store in fridge for 05 days.

Green tea has antioxidants that calm oil and bacteria.

*  “Don’t Pick” and Steam Trick:

80% of scars come from picking. Steam opens pores so gunk comes out naturally.

Bowl of hot water, towel over head, 05 minutes maximum, once a week. Follow with cold water splash to close pores. Then moisturise!

Golden rule: Hands off the pimples, my dear. Let them heal.

Quick safety note: Everyone’s skin is different. Patch test anything new on your jawline first.

(Part I of this article appeared in The Island yesterday.)

An examination of how some of the other countries have institutionalised mediation to address the problem of laws delays shows that an array of institutional devices have been adopted to provide for mediation not only as a voluntary option but also in some jurisdictions, as a mandatory requirement prior to litigation, to respond to serious issues of delays due to congestion in courts.

In the UK , in March 1994, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Lord  Woolf to review the Rules of civil procedure with a view to improving access to Justice, reducing the cost of litigation and removing unnecessary complexity. The resulting  Access to Justice Report (1996) triggered a series of reforms to improve the civil justice system primarily through the civil procedure rules (1999) which articulated that its overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. In 2023, the Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ  1416, decided that English courts do have the power to stay civil proceedings for, or order, parties to engage in mediation or another non-court- based dispute resolution process. The Rules were thereafter amended in 2024 to provide for the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) more proactively. These included rules that recognied that –

* promoting  or using ADR is a means of achieving the overriding objective;

*  the court has a duty to actively manage cases to further the overriding objective, including by ‘ordering or encouraging the parties to use, and facilitating the use of, alternative dispute resolution’ and ‘helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case’

* in deciding a costs order, a court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties, including whether a party failed to comply with an order for ADR or unreasonably failed to engage in ADR.

An ADR pledge made by the UK Government in 2001 was renewed in 2011, by the Dispute Resolution Commitment (DRC) requiring departments to use mediation, arbitration and conciliation. At that time, the then Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: ‘I believe that government should be leading by example by resolving issues away from court using alternatives which are usually quicker, cheaper and provide better outcomes. We want people to see court as a last resort rather than a first option, and cut down on the amount of unnecessary, expensive, painful and confrontational litigation in our society. In many cases methods like mediation are simply a common sense solution which benefits everyone involved. Although they will not be suitable in every case, they are already saving taxpayers millions every year and can save much more.’

The judicial dicta on the power of the courts to order mediation and the imposition of costs on even a successful party for unreasonable refusal to mediate, provides clear acceptance of a pro mediation approach by the UK courts.

In the USA , the discussion on the need for alternatives was raised in a speech made in 1906, by Roscoe Pound, a relatively unknown legal academic at the time, addressing the annual meeting of the American Bar Association (ABA). The title of his address was “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.”  He critiqued the American legal system and charged that it was riddled with archaic technicalities, too slow, too expensive and adversarial and that there was injustice when  procedure received emphasis above the substantive issues of a conflict. He spoke of the “sporting theory of justice” where litigation was considered as a game where the lawyers were gladiators battling in court to win. He charged that the contentious procedure compels ‘counsel to forget that they are officers of the court and  to deal with the rules of law and procedure exactly as the professional football coach with the rules of the court.’ At the time, Pound’s criticisms were considered scandalous, blasphemous and the ABA refused to publish the speech.  Things changed however.

Thirty years later, Roscoe Pound went on to become Dean of the Harvard Law School and became  a celebrated legal luminary. As for the legal system – Roscoe Pounds sentiments were not dismissed. Seventy years later in 1976, the then Chief Justice Warren Burger convened the Pound Conference (called the second  Pound Conference, with the first attributed to Pounds’ 1906 speech event), to consider whether Pounds’ criticisms had been adequately addressed and what more needed to be done. Professor Frank Sander of the Harvard Law School delivered the keynote address and spoke of his vision for a comprehensive Justice center (the “multi door court house”) where an alternative system would function parallel to the litigation system and disputes would be directed to the most appropriate process, such as arbitration and mediation.

The impact of these discussions resulted in significant changes to the dispute resolution landscape in the USA through statutes, inclusion of ADR in academic courses, and the professionalization of the practice of ADR processes, including mediation. Currently, arbitration and mediation are recognized within the mainstream legal system with resounding success.  All the States have recognized ADR pathways including mediation, in statutes. Mediation is well entrenched in the USA and the success rate is reportedly very high.

Australia has institutionalized mediation through several statutory and other initiatives. Courts are empowered to refer disputes to mediation without the consent of the parties to enable better management of civil matters. The Civil Dispute Resolution Act,  2011 contains provisions to ensure that, other than in respect of certain excluded civil proceedings,  parties must take “genuine steps” to resolve disputes prior to litigation. The Act obligates parties instituting proceedings in court to file a “genuine steps statement” setting out the steps taken to resolve issues or the reasons why no such steps were taken and further provides that a Lawyer acting for such a party must advise that party of the requirement and assist that party to comply with that requirement.

In Ireland, in the very recent case of Burke v O’Connell  [2026] IEHC 314 (May 20, 2026), the High Court considered  whether a court can order parties to mediate a dispute, against their will, or whether a court is restricted to simply inviting the parties to mediate. Among other issues, the court considered whether mandatory court ordered mediation is a breach of a constitutional right of access to courts, and decided that a court delaying court proceedings for court ordered Mediation, even against the will of the parties, would not constitute a breach of the right access to the courts under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights, and that judges in Ireland regularly make clear that the right of access to the courts is not unconditional. Importantly the court observed that the court is not directing the parties to reach an agreement but simply to commence  a mediation.  The Court also observed that a court directed mediation order is a very limited order which does not compel settlement and only requires parties to commence a Mediation process and that while attendance at Mediation may not be voluntary, reaching a settlement is voluntary and made order that a court, in controlling its own process, did have the power to direct Mediation in appropriate cases, and that it was an inherent power of the court to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the courts.

 The Indian Mediation Act, 2023  articulates a pro mediation policy and provides for mediation via a court annexed scheme for which detailed statutory provisions are included. The Act states that parties may voluntarily, and whether there is a mediation agreement or not, take steps to pursue court annexed pre litigation mediation and provides for the steps to be taken therefor (section 5). The Act provides further that, even if such pre litigation mediation is unsuccessful, a court or tribunal may, at any stage of the proceedings, refer parties to undertake mediation and that when a court so refers a dispute, there is no obligation on the parties to come to a settlement (section 7). In respect of high value commercial disputes however,  a plaintiff is required to exhaust ‘the remedy of  pre institution mediation’ prior to instituting action, unless urgent interim relief is sought – section 12A introduced by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, No. 28 of 2018.

 In South Africa, parties are mandated to consider mediation before initiating  litigation in the High Court. Challenged by a serious issue of a severe backlog, with trial dates scheduled even up to 2031, a Directive was issued by the Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court along with a detailed process Protocol, effective April 2025 to require mandatorily that prospective litigants in all civil matters within the Gauteng division must participate meaningfully in a court-annexed mediation process before they can be allocated a trial date. The protocol requires, among other documents, that a Report of the Mediator stating, among other matters, whether parties “participated in good faith” be filed, to obtain a trial date. This requirement has been included to avoid what the Judge President refers to as “sham mediations.”  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Gmkzfu8gA&t=425s) Non-compliance results in matters being struck off the roll and could lead to adverse or punitive cost orders. Currently, a challenge to this Directive by the Personal Injury Plaintiff Lawyers Association and the Law Society of South Africa is pending, without a stay of the Rule.

 Singapore has emerged as a global leader in the practice of mediation. The Mediation Act 2017 provides for a framework for the use of mediation and for enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement as a decree  of court. Mediation is well entrenched in the legal system of Singapore and enjoys the support of government as well as the judiciary. Singapore played a key role in UNCITRAL in the deliberations that led to the drafting of the text for the 1998 UN  Mediation Convention and was host to the Convention signing ceremony in August 1999 where a historical number of 46 countries, including Sri Lanka, signed the Convention on the very first day. Many of the training programmes for Sri Lankans that have been arranged by the International ADR Center, have been conducted by the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) which is renowned for its programmes and for services to handle international commercial disputes.

 The European Union Directive (EU Directive 2008/52/EC) provides that a court may, when appropriate and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, invite parties to use mediation (Article 5.1) and that the Directive is without prejudice to national legislation to making the use of mediation compulsory or subjective to incentives or sanctions … provided that such legislation does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system (Article 5.2). Many European countries have integrated mediation into their dispute resolution systems through legislation or procedural laws in ways that range from recognizing voluntary reference to mediation to requiring mandatory mediation for specified categories of disputes. Countries such as Italy, Greece, Germany and Belgium are some that have robust systems.

It is clear therefore, that jurisdictions around the world, irrespective of the legal system, have sought to recognize mediation for its value not only for minor community dispute resolution but also for the resolution of high value commercial and other family and civil dispute resolution.  UNCITRALs preparation of the text for the 1988 UN Mediation Convention was inspired by the significant increase in the use of mediation in international trade and the need for a uniform regime for enforcement, such as the UN NY Arbitration Convention provides in respect of arbitration awards.

 Sri Lanka’s advancements have thus far been driven by the private sector. A holistic approach to find responses to the backlog in courts to relieve the pressure on courts, is desired. The promotion  of ADR, including mediation, deserves support from the government as well, since, clearly, laws delays have an adverse impact on the economy of the country and should not be seen only as an access to justice issue. As articulated in the UN Mediation Convention, among the positive beneficial results of using mediation for dispute resolution, is that there are cost savings for the State. It is a means of resolving disputes without detracting from the quality of the resolution.

by Dhara Wijayatilake
Attorney at Law; Former Secretary to the Ministry of Justice; Director and Secretary General of the International ADR Center

In recent years, falling trees have claimed lives, destroyed homes, and sparked an urgent debate: should Colombo’s ancient trees be cut down in the name of safety? But this is the wrong question. The real crisis is not that these trees are dangerous — it is that we have made them so. Through decades of road widening, root-smothering pavements, and indiscriminate branch cutting, we have steadily undermined the very trees we now fear. What we are witnessing is not nature failing us. It is us failing nature. As the world marks World Desertification Day on 17th June, Sri Lanka would do well to reflect that desertification does not begin only in distant, arid lands — it begins whenever a city turns its back on its own green heritage.

In recent years, falling trees have claimed lives, destroyed homes, and sparked an urgent debate: should Colombo’s ancient trees be cut down in the name of safety? But this is the wrong question. The real crisis is not that these trees are dangerous — it is that we have made them so. Through decades of road widening, root-smothering pavements, and indiscriminate branch cutting, we have steadily undermined the very trees we now fear. What we are witnessing is not nature failing us. It is us failing nature.

Colombo, our commercial capital, is considered one of the greenest cities in the world. This is highlighted by the award of the world’s first Wetland City designation to our administrative capital, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte. Both cities and their green heritage should be treasured and protected — not only as assets of their citizens, but as a matter of national pride.

It is against this backdrop that one must view with deep concern the ongoing destruction of trees and greenery across Sri Lanka, particularly in urban settings such as Colombo and Kotte. The majestic trees lining our traditional tanks, rural areas, and urban areas are part of our heritage. The trees lining Colombo’s Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha (previously named the Green Path because of its large trees), Gregory’s Road, Thurstan Road, and Bauddhaloka Mawatha, are over a hundred years old. These are living monuments of our heritage. They provide shade, a natural canopy, and a habitat for a remarkable diversity of bird populations within the city. It is therefore vital that we make every effort to preserve these trees unless they pose a direct danger to human life.

Why Do These Trees Become Dangerous?

To address this question, we must first understand why large trees continue to fall during periods of strong winds. Old photographs indicate that it is we who have widened roads and built pavements to cover the roots of these majestic trees, a true heritage from the past.

A leading reason for trees to fall is age-related decay. Old trees tend to develop weak branches and trunks. Regular inspection of their structural integrity and timely treatment of disease would go a long way in preventing such failures.

The second reason is indiscriminate cutting of branches, which disrupts the natural balance of the tree. A principal offender in this regard is the Ceylon Electricity Board. When interviewing workers engaged in trimming city trees, one consistently hears the same justification: the branch must be cut because it is touching or close to a power line. There are no arborists, trained experts, or senior officials to guide these workers or determine whether a less destructive approach is possible.

The third reason is the destruction of root systems. Across the city, one can observe concrete and paving laid directly over the root zones of large trees. This prevents oxygenation and moisture from reaching the roots, causing them to deteriorate or die. The inevitable consequence is that the tree gradually loses its structural support at the base, making it vulnerable to falling.

What Should Municipalities and Town Councils Do?

To save our ancient trees, we must counter the flawed argument that we need to replace them—these trees are priceless “nature’s investments for hundreds of years” and, as a BBC article on ancient oaks suggests, their genetic heritage is vital for resilient future forests. See “1,000-year-old oaks used to create ‘super forest’ (See )

*  A nationwide strategy is essential: we must start by strengthening the expertise of tree officers in the Colombo Municipal Council and other urban councils to ensure professional health assessments are available, while also linking with botanists, academics, and environmental groups at the University of Colombo.

*  Use Google Maps and GIS for systematic mapping and reviving a citizen science platform, similar to one previously developed by University of Moratuwa, where students and the public can report environmental harm with photos and locations.

*  Technology offers more powerful tools. There are Conventional Visual Tree Risk Assessment (VTRA) methods which fail to detect risks. More advanced methods were reported at the 30 th International Forestry and Environment Symposium 2026 e.g. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). These are able to find trunk decay and found examples in urban trees at Viharamahadevi park and Keppetipola road.

*  We can raise public awareness through social media and community events like “tree walks,” a practice which could be further popularized by groups like Ruk Rakaganno (see ) and the Love A Tree Foundation (see )

*  Finally, we must learn from international models like the UK’s Ancient Tree Forum (see ). The latter specialises in protecting trees as a heritage which must be preserved and protected for future generations.

by Saroj Jayasinghe
Emeritus Professor
Consultant Physician