Features
Combination of circumstances gives CBK the opportunity to dissolve Parliament
Bradman takes final bow after a period on intense political manoeuvering
Ranil’s strength, according to the Constitution, came from his supremacy in Parliament. With great managerial skill he managed to keep at all times a sizable majority in place. The UNF never lost a vote in Parliament during those two years (Ranil was PM). The UNF itself was a coalition bringing together five parties which contested the election together. It must have brought much credit to his political acumen and management skills that in spite of severe stresses and strains, the UNF held together. It was also quite remarkable in a country where party political loyalties are notably fickle, that during the period of his government there was not a single resignation from party or office.
According to the Constitution, Parliament cannot be dissolved by presidential fiat until one year after its election. Thereafter though, the president is vested with the power to dissolve parliament at will and even though the government might have an absolute majority in the House. When Ranil’s second year began there was the opportunity for a sudden dissolution but although fears were raised from time to time, this did not happen. The peace process was well on track, the economy was beginning to pick up and investor confidence was rising. It needed an event of dramatic consequence to trigger any decision by the president to dissolve Parliament.
The opportunity finally came through a combination of circumstances. Firstly, the negotiation process itself had stalled in April 2003. Citing non-performance of undertakings given at the `talks’ as a primary reason, and the Washington donor review meeting to which they had not being invited as another, the LTTE refused to continue the schedule of talks as planned. Worse was to follow when they declined the invitation to participate at the June Tokyo Donor Conference. Initially the donor meeting had been planned for with both the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE being joint hosts.
There was a final issue which literally broke the camel’s back and impelled the line of action that resulted in the dissolution of Parliament.
The Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA)
ISGA was the response of the LTTE to the government’s proposals for an Interim Administration for the northeast. The government, after a great deal of thought by Ranil and G L, had sent in a proposal in June 2003 basically designed to provide for a mechanism which would handle effectively and speedily the donor funding anticipated for development. The decision-making authority was to consist of LTTE and government nominees (including representatives of the Muslims) with the LTTE having the majority.
The concept of an interim administration for the northeast was a cornerstone of the road map for a durable peace and had been one of Ranil’s undertakings in the election manifesto for the 2001 elections. Of course the details had not been determined and the government proposals at this stage were in the nature of a first offer open for discussions.
After a while, on October 31, 2003 the LTTE predictably, in view of their own thinking on the matter which was to obtain control of the administration of the northeast province, and not merely have a mechanism for the funding component, put forward their proposals for an Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA). This was clearly very far forward towards autonomy in the management of the northeast.
Ranil and G L responded immediately that the ISGA went further than they would think necessary at this stage of the negotiations but that the proposals could certainly constitute the basis for further discussion.
However considerable fear began to be expressed in the media, fuelled by elements opposed to the peace process and the political opposition to the government, that the ISGA represented the opening towards the creation of Eelam. The public debate and agitation put the UNF, already reeling from a sustained campaign carried out by the media, on the defensive. The media had a ready-made portfolio of apparent concessions made by the government to the LTTE through its ‘so-called’ peace process and supposed imminent danger to national security, especially the sea base at Trincomalee through the surreptitious establishment of 13 camps encircling the town.
Daily dispatches from intrepid news reporters filled the newspapers and the names of the ‘formidable’ LTTE camps, particularly Manirasakulam, were in everyone’s heads. Finally a brave attempt at taking the camp by a force of volunteers led by the leader of the Hela Urumaya was foiled in the nick of time – the army turning the force back before they could get within firing range. The government – defence ministry response – was lacklustre and the media had succeeded in preparing the grounds for a final denouement.
The president timed her move to perfection. On November 4, 2003 catching the ground-swell against the government at full tide and at a time when Ranil was out of the country in Washington, for a meeting with President Bush about the Free Trade Agreement with the US, President Chandrika launched her strike. She took over, under her constitutional powers, the ministry of defence on the grounds of the imminent threat to national security.
To make a clean sweep of things she also added the ministry of interior, which controlled the police, and the ministry of mass communication which ran the media institutions – two TV stations with all island coverage, the radio broadcasting service and Lake House with its complement of daily English, Sinhala and Tamil newspapers. This was a huge and an important capture of state power by the president which completely altered the balance of power in the cohabitation arrangement of December 2001. “A superbly timed and effectively executed constitutional coup,” as some commentators described it.
UNP Regroups after November 4
I had not gone to Washington with the PM because the trip was to be of very short duration. It was a long journey and I decided to stay back. As soon as the news broke, Karu Jayasuriya who was deputising for Ranil and Malik Samarawickrama, the very active chairman of the party, got together and called the rest of the Cabinet and MPs for an urgent meeting at Temple Trees. The mood was ugly. Some were for taking to the streets and creating a public agitation which would engulf the president’s house. Finally someone got through to Ranil – it was 3.00 am in the morning in Washington – but he was soon wide awake and giving instructions on how the crisis was to be met.
There was to be no panic reaction and no thought of violence. We were to be in constant consultation with him as the matter progressed. Tilak Marapana, minister of defence, John Amaratunga, minister of the interior and (media minister) Imtiaz Bakeer Markar should go about their work as if nothing had happened. The UNF parliamentary majority should be preserved at all costs. Ranil displayed great maturity in the way he dealt with this crisis. Nothing should be done to disturb the peace; the government should act with care; law and order should be preserved at all times and we should wait until he returned as scheduled. He would come back not a day earlier not a day later.
Ranil’s return to Colombo by air that morning, the November 7, was unprecedented. I have never seen a display of public support as that which he received from the hundreds of thousands who converged on the Katunayake-Colombo highway that day. The crowd was hysterical and would not let the convoy of cars pass on. One could, and some did, walk the 22 kilometres to Colombo faster than the cavalcade of cars. The triumphal procession (it had now taken on the character of a victory parade with papara music bands in open trucks providing the sound) took over nine hours. He should have been at Temple Trees at 10.00 am. He arrived at 5.30 pm flushed and hoarse with the number of speeches he had made on route but exultant in the outpouring of public support he had seen and felt that day.
The National Government of Reconciliation and Reconstruction
Ranil awaited the next move from the president. It came in the form of an invitation to talk. Ranil asked me to join him and I accepted with alacrity because it was always a pleasure to meet Chandrika. She would immediately remember the old days when I was her father’s and mother’s secretary and I felt very much at home with her. She had Karunaratne, her secretary and Mano Tittawella, who had come in as senior advisor at the presidential secretariat on her side.
The little communique we issued later said it was a cordial meeting which lasted almost two hours. But it was much more exciting than that. It began with the tension we officials feared. Ranil’s opening ball was a bumper. “Why did you have to do this when I was away?” he started off with. President Chandrika went into a very interesting, very long explanation of all that the UNP had done to her in the past two years. She had suffered all this in silence. But she had to act now since the government’s inaction had placed the nation in jeopardy. So she had to take over defence.
However she wanted Ranil to continue with the peace process. She did not want to touch it. Ranil countered that it was impossible to handle the peace process without control of the ministry of defence. If she could not give him back the ministry of defence then he had no objection at all to her handling the peace process. As the ‘ping-pong’ match was looking like ending in a draw the president made it known that she was suggesting this in the context of her overall design of a national government which could be termed one for “reconciliation and reconstruction”.
All parties would be represented in it; they could draw up a common, agreed-upon, program of action covering the national issues peace process, constitutional reform, economic development and governance questions; the Cabinet could be expanded from 50 upwards if necessary and there would be a definite period of time for the national government. At the end of the one or two-year period the need for the national government would not be there and the parties could go their individual ways.
President Chandrika also hinted that if this did not find acceptance she had other options to proceed with on her own. She indicated that there was a strong movement from within the PA for an alliance – a sandhanaya – with the JVP. That particular agreement was almost ready for signature. So the idea of a national government was now beginning to sound politically interesting and doable, albeit with a lot of goodwill on all sides. The small print had however to be worked out.
For that, both the president and Ranil agreed, one needed persons who were not politicians. Finally it was decided that the respective secretaries, that is Karu (Jayasuriya) and myself and Malik Samarawickrem and Mano Tittawella would be the four-man team who would work out the details. The president liked and got on well with Malik and she suggested he come in as Ranil’s representative while she would have Mano Tittawella as her person on the team.
Thus was born the ‘Mano-Malik Talks’ – an adequate sobriquet manufactured by the media for the seven rounds of a fascinating, extended conversation between the four of us in the months of November and December 2003 and January 2004. It was valid too, since it was the two of them who did most of the talking. Karu and I did the writing.
We had two basic terms of reference. The first which was easy was to formulate a consensual plan of action outlining the detailed measures to be taken on which all could agree. This covered steps to be taken to resume the negotiations with the LTTE, areas of governance like the appointment of the anti-bribery commission, electoral reform – the Report of the Select Committee of Parliament was to be expedited, clearing the impasse regarding the setting up of the elections commission, and a listing of urgent infrastructural projects awaiting development – roads, power plants, port facilities, etc.
The second which was extremely complex and on which no agreement could be reached, was the issue of the defence ministry. The critical question being as to whether there was any formula by which Ranil would be able to assume authority over the defence apparatus which would enable him to pursue the peace process, while the defence ministry portfolio would continue to be handled by the president. Try as we could, and we had some suggestions from a friendly neighbour too, there was no way something acceptable to both chief actors could be devised all through November and December.
Time was running out when we resumed our talks after the long X’mas and New Year break. We managed to cobble together a not-so-satisfactory arrangement which would have needed great patience and forbearance by both the president and prime minister to work through at our final meeting at the end of January. Malik and I were promised a final decision by the other side at a scheduled meeting on February 9 after the Independence Day festivities were completed. The presidential message of February 4 too seemed promising. But then inexplicably, on the night of February 7, Parliament was dissolved and elections fixed for April 2, 2004. Mano-Malik disappeared into thin air (if that were possible as far as Mano was concerned) and once again the battle lines were being drawn for the now-almost annual parliamentary elections.
Ranil took the field with his old team – all his allies from the UNF, the CWC and Rauf Hakeems S1MC, especially by his side. President Chandrika’s PA now had the powerful support of the JVP in a new political formation: the UPFA the United Peoples Freedom Alliance – retaining traces of the People in JVP and the Freedom in SLFP -. It proved to be a winning combination roaring in with massive majorities in several electoral districts.
Ranil stuck to his track record of credible achievement in the two and a quarter years he had run the government. He had promised an end to the war and peace so that people could lead a normal life. He had fulfilled that promise. He had promised the restoration of a run-down economy and the laying of a foundation for sustainable growth. He felt he had achieved this with modest growth ‘the fundamental macro-economic indicators of inflation, budgetary deficits, etc, in order, and renewed investor interest in the economy. He had promised no ‘goodies’ and he had none to hand out yet. That would come later, after the sweat and tears but no blood.
The UPFA campaign too addressed the two chief issues; the peace process and the economy. But directly in contravention of the UNF’s perception of how things had gone in two years the UPFA insisted that the peace process was flawed; it had only been a craven knuckling-down by the government to the unreasonable demands of the LTTE, endangering national security. The UPFA would keep the peace and negotiate with the LTTE but without sacrificing national security and dignity. On the economy, the UPFA maintained that the rich had got richer but the poor had got poorer. The government’s policy prescriptions, dictated by the World Bank and IMF, only favoured the rich – the cost of living had risen and unemployment was rampant.
The electorates choice was decisive as the results of the April 2 election showed:
UPFA
105 seats 45.60%
UNF
82 seats 37.83%
ITAK
22 seats 6.84%
JHU
9 seats 5.97%
SLMC
5 seats 2.02%
No party or coalition had secured the necessary 113 seats for an absolute majority in the 225 member Parliament. No more sustainable alliances appeared possible. Two new political formations with profound significance for the future too had arrived on the scene.
ITAK – the old (1956) Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi – alias Federal Party had emerged after a clean sweep of the north and east and were now virtually the political representatives of the LTTE.
Jatika Hela Urumaya (JHU), the national Sinhala heritage party with only Buddhist monks as its parliamentary representatives had sprung up virtually from nowhere as a protest constituency. It appeared to be a heady mix of middle class professionals, Buddhist devotees. and intellectuals dissatisfied with both mainline parties – the PA and the UNP – and their inability to protect the Sinhala Buddhist identity against the “insidious forces ofTamil separatism, unethical conversions to Christianity, and the sweeping tide of western neo-colonialism under the garb of globalisation.”‘
The polarization of political, economic and social forces had never been seen in such clarity before. The divisive impulses of class – rich against the poor; race Tamil against the Sinhalese (or the Tiger against the Lion); and religion – Buddhists against the Christians – had come back cloaked and garbed, 50 years on to challenge our leaders for the next 50 years. As Ranil, perhaps a trifle wearily, settled down to take stock and address the future, I decided it was time to make my final bow.
(Excerpted from ‘Rendering Unto Caesar’
by Bradman Weerakoon) ✍️
Features
The challenge of being positive about SAARC
It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.
Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.
However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?
There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.
The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.
Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.
Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.
The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.
On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.
In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.
Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.
Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.
The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.
These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.
Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.
There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.
However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.
Features
OPA seminar examines Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and growth pathways
A seminar, “Sri Lanka’s Economic Crossroads: Navigating Recovery, Resilience and Growth” was recently held by the Organisation of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka (OPA) at the OPA Auditorium, bringing together economists, OPA members, and professionals from diverse fields for an insightful discussion on Sri Lanka’s economic recovery and future growth prospects.
The event was held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, and was jointly organised by the National Issues Committee (NIC) and the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee of the OPA. The event reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to advancing professional excellence, fostering insightful intellectual engagement, facilitating interdisciplinary knowledge exchange and creating a constructive platform for informed dialogue on issues of national importance.
The panel of speakers comprised Dr. Harsha Aturupane, Lead Economist and Programme Leader for Human Development at the World Bank for Sri Lanka and the Maldives; Dr. Achinthya Koswatta, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka, and Anushan Kapilan, Lead Economist at Verité Research.
In his welcome address, the President of the OPA emphasised that Sri Lanka was at a critical juncture in its economic recovery journey where sustained reforms, effective implementation, and collective national commitment are essential to achieving long-term stability, resilience and inclusive growth. He noted that the country had experienced one of the most severe economic crises in its history with the economy contracting by 7.8 percent in 2022 and a further 11.5 percent in 2023, resulting in significant economic and social challenges.
Delivering his introductory remarks Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee, underscored the need to move beyond short-term economic stabilisation towards a comprehensive agenda of structural transformation. He observed that the economic crisis had revealed deep-rooted weaknesses within the economy, including persistent fiscal pressures, rising public debt, foreign exchange limitations, and insufficient diversification of the export base. He stressed that addressing these challenges through strategic reforms, institutional strengthening and long-term economic planning would be essential to establishing a more resilient and competitive economy.
While acknowledging recent positive developments, including improved inflation management, tourism recovery and signs of economic stabilisation, Wijeyaratne stressed the need to advance reforms aimed at strengthening fiscal discipline, enhancing productivity, improving competitiveness, developing human capital and reinforcing governance and institutional effectiveness.
He further highlighted the important role of professionals, businesses, academia and other stakeholders in contributing to evidence-based dialogue and supporting Sri Lanka’s journey towards a resilient, inclusive and sustainable economic future.
Delivering the keynote presentation, Dr. Harsha Aturupane provided a comprehensive assessment of Sri Lanka’s economic prospects within the broader context of global economic transformation. He argued that Sri Lanka functioned as a small open economy whose performance is significantly influenced by developments in the global marketplace. External factors could not be controlled, and the country must strengthen its domestic capacity and resilience to respond effectively to international economic shifts, he noted.
Tracing the evolution of global economic systems, Dr. Aturupane highlighted the transition from ideological divisions between state-controlled and market-oriented economies towards increasingly pragmatic approaches focused on growth, competitiveness and development. He noted that Sri Lanka’s own economic journey reflects a similar evolution, with contemporary policy debates now centred on practical solutions for sustainable economic progress.
The presentation also examined the transformative impact of globalisation. Dr. Aturupane observed that global economic integration had enabled several East Asian economies, including South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, to achieve remarkable economic advancement through export-led growth strategies. Sri Lanka similarly benefited from this process through the expansion of its apparel industry and increased integration into global value chains.
Turning to Sri Lanka’s recovery programme, Dr. Aturupane emphasised that the ongoing stabilisation process should be viewed as a national programme supported by the International Monetary Fund rather than solely as an IMF initiative. He observed that strong worker remittances, improved tourism earnings, enhanced government revenue mobilisation and prudent import management have contributed significantly to economic stabilisation.
Despite this progress, he cautioned that rebuilding foreign exchange reserves and meeting future debt obligations remain major challenges. He underscored the need to strengthen export performance, attract investment and generate sustainable foreign exchange earnings to ensure long-term economic resilience.
The discussion also focused on monetary stability, inflation management and exchange-rate policy. Dr. Aturupane stressed that maintaining price stability was fundamental to sustainable growth and household welfare, while sound monetary policy remains essential for preserving economic confidence.
Looking beyond stabilisation, he argued that Sri Lanka must transition towards a broader economic transformation agenda. Sustainable growth, he noted, will depend on expanding productive capacity through investment, technological advancement, innovation, skills development and structural reforms.
Among the key constraints identified was the high cost of energy, which continues to affect competitiveness and investment attractiveness. Dr. Aturupane emphasised the importance of improving efficiency and affordability within the energy sector to enhance Sri Lanka’s business environment.
He further highlighted the social dimensions of the crisis, noting the rise in poverty and economic vulnerability among households. Strengthening social protection systems and ensuring inclusive growth, he argued, must remain central components of the national development agenda.
Another critical challenge identified was Sri Lanka’s demographic transition. With an ageing population, outward migration and evolving labour market dynamics, the country is increasingly confronting labour shortages in several sectors. Dr. Aturupane suggested that greater automation, increased labour-force participation and strategic workforce planning would be necessary to address these emerging realities.
Concluding his presentation, he emphasised the need to improve governance, strengthen institutions, enhance competitiveness and create an enabling environment for private sector investment. Sri Lanka’s future success, he noted, will depend on its ability to move decisively beyond crisis management towards a development model founded on resilience, innovation, productivity and inclusive growth.
Dr. Achinthya Koswatta reiterated the importance of policy consistency and predictability in fostering investment and industrial development. She observed that frequent policy changes create uncertainty and discourage long-term investment decisions, whereas stable and coherent policy frameworks build confidence and support sustainable economic transformation.
Meanwhile, Anushan Kapilan highlighted the substantial progress achieved in restoring macroeconomic stability following the recent crisis. He noted significant improvements in fiscal performance, including increased government revenue, reduced reliance on debt financing and a historically low fiscal deficit.
He further observed that public debt levels are declining faster than anticipated, economic growth has exceeded expectations and inflation has been brought under control more rapidly than forecast. Nevertheless, he cautioned that the recovery remains uneven, particularly within the industrial sector and that many households have yet to experience a meaningful improvement in living standards.
The seminar was expertly coordinated by Eng. Chamil Edirimuni, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the Seminars, Workshops and Programmes Committee, while the technical moderation and interactive discussion session were facilitated by Bhanu Wijeyaratne, Vice President of the OPA and Chairman of the National Issues Committee.
The event was attended by Tisara De Silva, President-Elect of the OPA, Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary, Past Presidents, members of the Executive Council, representatives of the General Forum and professionals representing a wide range of disciplines.
The seminar concluded with a vibrant exchange of ideas and perspectives, reaffirming the importance of evidence-based policy dialogue, institutional collaboration and collective national commitment in advancing Sri Lanka’s economic recovery, resilience and sustainable growth.
Features
Her roots run deep in Sri Lanka
Yes, for UK-based presenter and artiste Samantha Kay, home is where the heart – and the roots – are. And her roots run deep in Sri Lanka.
In an exclusive interview with The Island, Samantha says “I’m proud to be Sri Lankan. My mum is from Kandy and my dad is from Colombo, so Sri Lanka has always held a very special place in my heart.
“Whenever I visit Sri Lanka, I love spending time on the beautiful south coast, especially Hikkaduwa and Mirissa. It’s somewhere I always feel connected to my roots and completely at peace.”
Now living in Bournemouth, on the south coast of England, where, she says, she is lucky to be close to some of the UK’s most beautiful beaches, including the iconic Sandbanks, Samantha has built a career that refuses to fit into one box.
She is a radio presenter, podcast host, singer-songwriter, personal trainer and life coach.
“I genuinely love the variety because every role allows me to connect with people and, hopefully, make a positive difference in someone’s day.”
Of course, music has taken her far.
One of her proudest achievements, she says, was releasing a song with 90s music icon Angie Brown, which reached No. 9 in the UK Club Charts.
She also reached the final stages of The X Factor and performed at Wembley Stadium in front of thousands.
Beyond music, Samantha competed in bikini bodybuilding across the UK, winning several titles. “It taught me discipline, resilience and self-belief,” she recalls.
Today, her focus is on radio, podcasting and coaching women. Her podcast encourages people to live life on their own terms rather than feeling pressured to follow society’s expectations.
Says Samantha: “Whether someone is single, changing careers, travelling solo or simply trying to find their purpose, I want them to know that it’s never too late to create a life that feels authentic. If you’ve ever felt like you don’t fit into the box, maybe you were never meant to.”
Samantha Kay also spent a year in Dubai, performing at five-star hotels, including FIVE, and coaching at the iconic outdoor gym on Palm Jumeirah.
“I taught strength and conditioning classes, and hosted wellness retreats, combining my passion for music, health and inspiring others.”
However, with family matters calling her back to the UK, she made the choice to return. “Family comes first,” she says.
Looking ahead, Samantha plans to grow her radio and podcast work, release more music, and expand her wellness retreats.
“My biggest passion is helping people, especially women, build confidence and believe in themselves,” she says.
“Wherever my career takes me, I hope to continue inspiring others to live with courage, kindness and authenticity, while never forgetting my Sri Lankan roots.”
-
News6 days agoHerath warns prospective migrant workers not to get fleeced by racketeers
-
Features4 days agoPrison riots and politics: NPP’s biggest challenge and Sri Lanka’s biggest opportunity
-
Editorial5 days agoWhat’s the world coming to?
-
Foreign News6 days agoTensions erupt in Indian state after 11-year-old raped and murdered
-
Features6 days agoDevanesan Annan – in Memoriam
-
Editorial6 days agoPunishment in hellholes
-
News7 days agoRepresentatives of the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA) of Sri Lanka meet the Prime Minister
-
Features1 day agoDirty Money
