Features
Contradictions by Canada on ‘genocide’ in Sri Lanka
by Neville Ladduwahetty
A frontpage headline in the Daily Mirror of June 16, 2023 said: “Canada informs SL that NO GENOCIDE TOOK PLACE IN SL”. Two other sub headers state: “Canada’s Foreign Ministry informs SL that no finding on genocide in Sri Lanka” and “However, the Canadian PM renewed the narrative of genocide on May 18, 2023”. Continuing the report states: “In what appeared to be a clash of narratives among Canada’s leaders, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry has informed the Sri Lankan government that Canada had not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka, the Daily Mirror learns”.
If what has been reported is correct, the narrative of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry contradicts the position taken by the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who, while making a statement commemorating the 14th anniversary of the end of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka, justified the unanimous adoption one year ago by the Canadian Parliament of a motion to make May 18 Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
Given the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry statement that “Canada has not made any finding that genocide had taken place in Sri Lanka”, it is beyond comprehension for any government of Canada, which proudly calls itself part of the First World, for its Foreign Affairs Ministry and for its Prime Minister to take such vastly divergent views in respect of charges of genocide in another sovereign country such as Sri Lanka. Such contradictions reflect not only the poor state of governance in Canada but also its scant respect for a sovereign country and its Peoples’ sensibilities. How should Sri Lanka handle such contradictions?
SRI LANKA’S RESPONSE
Whether the contradiction between Canada’s Foreign Affairs Ministry and its Prime Minister is fact, misreport or fiction, the response from Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry to Canadian PM’s statement was to state: “Such irresponsible and polarising pronouncements by the leader of a nation breeds disharmony and hatred in Canada and Sri Lanka, instead of promoting peace and reconciliation”. The statement continues to vehemently reject the “unsubstantiated narrative of genocide which has been deliberately construed by politically motivated anti-Sri Lanka elements, whose so-called recognition in Canada depends on spreading misinformation and a false narrative of hatred” (Daily FT, May 23, 2023).
The above response is directed only in respect of the comments by Canada’s Prime Minister. The response does not address the motion by Canada’s 338 Member Parliament which states: “this House acknowledges the Genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and recognizes May 18th of each year as Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day”. The House of Commons unanimously accepted the motion”.
What is of deep regret is that although Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry was aware that a motion to declare May 18th as a “Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day” was work in progress long before the motion was passed unanimously by Canada’s Parliament, not enough was done to counter the “unanimous efforts” of the Canadian Parliament. For the SL Foreign Ministry to claim that its representative in Canada failed to present material evidence to convince even a few of a 338 Member Parliament to prevent the unanimous support for an “unsubstantiated narrative of genocide”, is unbelievable.
If the entire Canadian Parliament believes that there was genocide in Sri Lanka, should not such a charge be “vehemently rejected” via a unanimous decision of Sri Lanka’s Parliament, bearing in mind that anyone who opposes or abstains would by their action be endorsing the Canadian Parliament’s motion? Regardless of the outcome of such a resolution, the fact remains that it is appropriate that a claim, however indefensible by ONE Parliament (in this case Canada), should be countered by none other than by The OTHER Parliament (in this case, Sri Lanka) for the sake of parity of member states and the dignity of the nation, and NOT by the Foreign Ministry. Furthermore, in this case, it is only a Parliamentary Resolution in Sri Lanka itself that could prevent Tamil pocket boroughs in other countries from adopting similar motions.
WHAT IS AT STAKE
What is at stake is the inability of Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry to hold the LTTE that represented the Tamil community responsible for endangering the security of the Tamil civilian population by holding them hostage and using them as a human shield during the final stages of the armed conflict. This stems from the refusal of successive Sri Lankan Foreign Ministries to acknowledge that the armed conflict in Sri Lanka was a Non-International Armed Conflict and the applicable law is International Humanitarian Law as codified in “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions …relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict”. The explanation offered by the SL Foreign Ministry for not categorizing the conflict as an armed conflict is because of the lame fact that the Sri Lankan Government has not ratified the Additional Protocol II of 1977; a position that ignores the relevance of provisions contained in Customary Law relating to Non-International Armed Conflict.
What is at stake is the contrasting position taken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that Article 3 common to all Geneva Conventions is applicable to the armed conflict that took place in Sri Lanka. For instance:
Paragraph 182 of the above Report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees pertaining to the treatment of civilians and persons hors de combat contained therein. Common article 3 binds all parties to the conflict to respect as a minimum, that persons taking no direct part in hostilities as well as those placed hors de combat shall be treated humanely”.
Paragraph 183 states: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
Therefore, even if Sri Lanka has not ratified Additional Protocol II of 1977, Sri Lanka and the LTTE are bound alike by customary law, and taking civilians hostage and using them as a human shield is a violation of customary law; a fact incorporated in Article 13 (6) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution that state: “Nothing in this Article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to general principles of law recognised by the community of nations”.
What is at stake is the failure on the part of successive SL Foreign Ministries and Governments to present evidence relating to the indisputable fact that the LTTE took civilians hostage and used them as a human shield, thereby violating Customary Law. This is a gross dereliction of duty for which Accountability is needed. More importantly, it belittles the honour and dignity of the thousands of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel who gave their full measure of devotion to protect the civilians who attempted to find safety among the security forces, while defending the integrity of the State. These hard facts which are contained in several Presidential Commission Reports, the Reports of the ICRC and by others such as Lord Naseby were not presented to the Canadian Government or to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Instead the refrain has consistently been the cry of “unsubstantiated narratives”.
TAMIL GENOCIDE DAY
The term “Tamil Remembrance Day”, albeit not specifically stated, by implication means that genocide was committed by the Sri Lankan Government because GENOCIDE under International Criminal Law means the deliberate destruction of one group by another.
The word, genocide, as first coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943 “does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killing of all members of a nation”. Instead, “it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves”.
The fact that the majority of the Tamil people were outside the conflict zone and did not experience any attempts to destroy them in any way whatsoever, means that it could be categorically concluded that there was no genocide of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. Instead, what Sri Lanka experienced during the final stages of the armed conflict was conflict related casualties of those within the conflict zone made up of Security Forces personnel, the LTTE combatants and Tamil civilians, brought about entirely by the strategy adopted by the LTTE to take the Tamil civilians hostage and using them as a human shield for which the LTTE has to be held totally accountable for committing a war crime on the basis of customary law and subjecting a disproportionate number of Tamil civilians to face death. .
Thus far, the focus has been on the number of conflict related casualties. While large numbers have been the basis for charges of genocide, the more realistic numbers have been the basis for conflict related casualties. In the perspective of such a background, it is apparent that the Canadian Parliament relied on the high numbers presented by the Canadian Tamil diaspora in the absence of any efforts to counter such claims by successive SL Foreign Ministries and Governments. Under the circumstances, the only option for the Sri Lankan Parliament is to initiate a motion that presents realistic numbers from credible sources and reject the motion passed by the Canadian Parliament. Failure to do so would be seen by the citizens of Sri Lanka as another failed attempt to stand up and be counted.
CONCLUSION
The issue is not the contradiction between Canada’s Prime Minister’s position to recognise genocide in Sri Lanka and for its Foreign Affairs Ministry failing to find genocide in Sri Lanka. The real issue is the motion unanimously adopted one year ago by the Canadian Parliament to commemorate Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. The fact that the entire Canadian Parliament passed such a motion reflects their mental incapacity to distinguish between conflict related casualties who were a minority within the conflict zone and the majority of the Tamil community who was outside, experiencing only the effects of the conflict along with the rest in Sri Lanka.
It is indeed disappointing that not one single member of the 338 Member Canadian Parliament thought it necessary to exercise due diligence and view the motion before them objectively when they cast a vote in favour of a motion that by implication accused a sovereign state and its Peoples of a crime that it is not guilty of, because of their inability to distinguish between conflict related casualties with genocide. The claim that “tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed in the last phase of the war” was within the conflict zone because the strategy adopted by the LTTE to take Tamil civilians hostage and use them as a human shield resulted not only in committing a war crime but also disproportionately increased the number of deaths in the conflict zone.
On the other hand, genocide means the intentional destruction of the foundation of one group by another. This did NOT occur in Sri Lanka because the majority of the Tamil population that was outside the conflict zone did not experience any attempts to destroy who and what they were as a community. It is the inability to appreciate the differences in the experiences of those within the conflict zone and those outside that perhaps is the reason for the flawed conclusion reached by the Canadian Parliament. that there was genocide in Sri Lanka. The conclusion reached by the Canadian Parliament through a gross error in judgment by their elected representatives thus becomes a cause to shame Canada and its Peoples. The only way to redeem that shame is for Canadian Parliament to withdraw the motion they had unanimously passed.
The reason for this skewed perspective to persist is because of the inability of the SL Foreign Ministry to have a true and realistic understanding of the legal nuances associated with Sri Lanka’s armed conflict. They have dismissed the whole issue by falling back on their stock position to do nothing on the basis that Sri Lanka has not ratified Additional Protocol II of 1977, and in the process ignored the fact that taking civilians hostage and using them as a human shield is a war crime under customary law to which the LTTE is bound (Paragraph 183 cited above). Therefore, ratification is of no relevance.
In such a background it is appropriate for Sri Lanka’s Parliament to present facts from credible sources that hitherto successive governments have failed to do, and for the Cabinet to initiate a resolution that vehemently rejects charges of genocide. However, going by past practices, it is most likely for this government not to resort to any meaningful measure and kick the can down the road and dishonor the dignity of the Sri Lankan Peoples and the Nation notwithstanding the fact that doing nothing means the shame of genocide in Sri Lanka would remain.
Features
The Paradox of Coercion: US strategy and the global re-emergence of Iran
(A sequel to the two-part article, War with Iran and unravelling of the global order, published in The Island on April 8 and 9.)
The unfolding developments in the US-Israeli coordinated military attack against Iran reveal a striking paradox at contemporary geopolitics: efforts to weaken a state through coercion may, under certain conditions, contribute to its structural elevation within the international system. What appears as short-term tactical success can generate long-term strategic consequences that are neither anticipated nor easily reversible. In this context, the policies associated with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, marked by unilateralism and the willingness to use force, risk producing precisely such an unintended outcome. Rather than marginalising Iran, their actions may be accelerating its re-emergence, not merely as a regional actor in the Middle East, but as a consequential player in the global geopolitics and the wider architecture of international supply chains of energy economy.
Iran not merely a state
Iran is not merely a state, but a civilisation with a distinctive political trajectory. At the heart of the present transformation lies its asymmetric strategy, rooted in the strategic exploitation of geography. Few states possess the capacity to shape the global system through geography alone. Iran’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passage through which a substantial share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows, endows it with a latent structural power that transcends conventional measures of national capability.
In periods of stability, this position translates into economic opportunity; in moments of crisis, it becomes a lever of systemic disruption. Recent tensions have demonstrated that even limited instability in this corridor can reverberate across global markets, triggering sharp increases in energy prices, disrupting supply chains, and amplifying inflationary pressures worldwide. Should Iran consolidate its capacity to influence or control this chokepoint, whether through military deterrence, asymmetric instruments, or diplomatic maneuvering, it would shift from being a participant in global energy markets to a pivotal arbiter of their functioning.
Energy-embedded global economy
The contemporary global economy is not merely energy-dependent; it is deeply energy-embedded. Hydrocarbons underpin not only transportation and electricity generation but also the production of petrochemicals, fertilisers, and a wide range of industrial inputs essential to modern manufacturing and food systems. Disruptions linked to Iran have already illustrated how shocks in the energy sector cascade through interconnected supply chains, affecting everything from agricultural output to high-technology industries. In this sense, Iran’s leverage is no longer confined to the traditional realm of resource geopolitics. It increasingly operates within a networked global system in which control over a single critical node can generate disproportionate influence across multiple sectors. This form of power, diffuse, indirect, and systemic, marks a departure from the more linear dynamics of twentieth-century oil politics.
The implications of such a shift are profound for the structure of the international order. For decades, the global system has been underpinned by a set of institutions, norms, and economic arrangements often described as the so-called liberal international order. Sanctions, financial controls, and diplomatic isolation have been key instruments through which dominant powers have sought to discipline states that challenge this order. However, Iran’s prolonged exposure to sanctions has compelled it to develop adaptive strategies: alternative trade networks, informal financial channels, and closer ties with non-Western partners. A crisis-induced re-entry into global markets would therefore not signify reintegration into the existing order, but rather the expansion of parallel systems that operate alongside, and sometimes in opposition to, it. In this context, Iran’s rise would contribute to the gradual fragmentation of the global economy, accelerating trends toward decoupling, regionalization, and the erosion of established institutional authority.
Decline of global order based on US hegemony
This process of fragmentation is closely linked to declining global order based on U.S. hegemony. A more globally consequential Iran would inevitably become a focal point in the strategic player in emerging multipolar world. For China, whose economic growth remains heavily dependent on secure energy supplies, deeper engagement with Iran would serve both economic and geopolitical objectives, reinforcing its presence in the broader Middle East and insulating it from vulnerabilities associated with maritime chokepoints. Russia, already positioned as a major energy exporter and a challenger to Western dominance, may find in Iran a complementary partner in reshaping global energy markets and contesting sanctions regimes. Meanwhile, countries across the Global South, including major importers such as India, would face a more complex strategic environment, characterized by heightened exposure to supply disruptions and increased pressure to navigate between competing power centers. In this emerging landscape, Iran would function less as an isolated actor and more as a pivotal node within a reconfigured network of global alignments.
Dynamics enhancing Iran’s strategic importance
Paradoxically, the very dynamics that enhance Iran’s strategic importance may also accelerate efforts to reduce dependence on the conditions that enable its influence. Recurrent energy shocks tend to catalyze policy responses aimed at diversification and resilience. States are likely to expand strategic reserves, invest in alternative supply routes, and accelerate transitions toward renewable energy and nuclear power. Over the longer term, such measures could diminish the centrality of fossil fuel chokepoints, thereby constraining Iran’s leverage. However, this transition will be uneven and contested. Advanced economies may possess the resources to adapt more rapidly, while developing countries remain structurally dependent on affordable hydrocarbons. In the interim, the global system may experience a prolonged period in which dependence on Iranian-linked energy flows coexists with attempts to transcend it—a duality that adds further complexity to the evolving geopolitical landscape.
Beyond material considerations, Iran’s potential re-emergence also signals a deeper transformation of the existing global order. Traditional metrics—military strength, economic size, technological capacity—remain somewhat important, but they are increasingly complemented by the ability to influence critical nodes within global networks. The capacity to disrupt, delay, or redirect flows of energy, goods, and capital can generate strategic effects that rival, or even surpass, those achieved through direct military confrontation. In this sense, Iran exemplifies a broader shift from territorial geopolitics to what might be termed network geopolitics. Control over chokepoints, supply chains, and infrastructural linkages become a central determinant of influence, enabling states with relatively limited ‘conventional’ capabilities to exert outsized impact on the international system.
Iran’s trajectory may be understood as a transition through several distinct phases: from a regional challenger seeking to assert influence within the Middle East, to a strategic disruptor capable of unsettling global markets, and ultimately to a systemic actor whose decisions carry worldwide consequences. This evolution is neither inevitable nor linear; it depends on a complex interplay of domestic resilience, external pressures, and the responses of other global actors. Nevertheless, the possibility itself underscores the unintended consequences of policies that prioritize short-term coercion over long-term strategic foresight.
Transition shaped by paradoxes
In historical perspective, moments of systemic transition are often shaped by such paradoxes. Actions taken to preserve an existing order can, under certain conditions, accelerate its transformation. The current crisis involving Iran may represent one such moment. By elevating the strategic significance of energy chokepoints, exposing the vulnerabilities of interconnected supply chains, and encouraging the development of alternative economic networks, it contributes to a broader reconfiguration of global power. In this emerging context, Iran’s re-emergence as a global actor would not simply reflect its own capabilities or ambitions; it would also embody the structural shifts reshaping the international system itself. What began as an effort to constrain Iran may ultimately facilitate its transformation into a decisive player in the global energy economy and supply chain architecture. The implications of this shift extend far beyond the Middle East, touching upon the stability of markets, the cohesion of international institutions, and the evolving nature of power in the twenty-first century.
The war with Iran is best understood not as a discrete regional conflict, but as a structural moment in the transformation of the international system. It reveals a growing disjuncture between the continued reliance on coercive statecraft and the realities of an interdependent global order in which power increasingly derives from control over critical economic and infrastructural nodes. Rather than achieving strategic containment, the conflict has underscored the capacity of a relatively constrained actor to generate systemic effects through geoeconomic leverage. In doing so, it highlights a broader shift from military-centric conceptions of power toward forms of influence embedded in networks of energy, trade, and supply chains.
This is not merely a redistribution of power, but a redefinition of how power operates. At the systemic level, the war accelerates the erosion of the post-Cold War order, reinforcing tendencies toward fragmentation, parallel economic arrangements, and multipolar competition. Iran’s potential re-emergence as a global actor should therefore be seen less as an isolated outcome than as a manifestation of these deeper structural changes. In this sense, the strategic significance of the war lies in its unintended consequences: it exposes the limits of coercive hegemony while simultaneously amplifying the importance of those actors positioned to exploit the vulnerabilities of an interconnected world.
by Gamini Keerawella ✍️
Features
The dawn of smart help for little ones
How Artificial Intelligence is breaking barriers in Autism Diagnosis and Care
For any parent, the early years are a most valuable countdown of “firsts” of his or her precious child: the first step, the first clear word, the first beautiful smile, and quite a few other firsts as well. Yet for all that, for some families, that joy is overshadowed by a growing, quiet, but disturbing intuition that something is even a little bit different. Perhaps a child is not responding to his or her name, or the little one seems to be more interested in the spinning wheels of a toy than a game of peek-a-boo, or even avoids normal social responses.
In many countries, especially in the developing world, the road from that first “gut feeling” that there is something wrong, to a formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is often a long and exhausting journey. While doctors can often identify autism in children as young as 12 to 18 months, the average age of diagnosis in our communities still hovers around four years. In these critical years, when a child’s brain is most like a machine ready to learn and adapt, time is of the essence and is the most valuable resource a family has.
Today, a new “algorithmic dawn” is offering a shortcut to really cut that delay. Artificial Intelligence (AI), the very same smart technology that helps us navigate traffic, suggest a new song, or help people with ChatGPT, is moving out of the lab and into the children’s nursery. By acting as a digital “magnifying glass”, specifically designed AI tools can now spot subtle patterns in a child’s gaze, some little quirks in the rhythm of their babbling, or the way they move, often much faster than the human eye can. Then the machine can issue a warning signal and indicate that further action and a proper evaluation are necessary. This is most certainly not about replacing the brain, the heart and the expertise of a paediatrician; it is about providing “Smart Help” that can be accessed from a smartphone in a family living room. For millions of “little ones on the spectrum”, most notably in the developing world, this technology is turning a journey once defined by waiting, uncertainty and even tears, into one of proactive care and even brighter horizons. The time gained is most certainly a very valuable window of opportunity.
What is the “Spectrum,” and Why Does Time Matter?
Autism is described as a “spectrum” because it affects many children somewhat differently and to varying degrees. Some children may have advanced technical skills but struggle to hold a conversation; others may be non-verbal or have intense sensory sensitivities. It can be very mild or very severe, and perhaps everywhere in between as well.
The common thread is that the brain develops differently in these affected children. This is why Early Intervention is the gold-standard goal. During the toddler years, a child’s brain is incredibly “plastic”, meaning that it is a highly adaptable and ready to learn type of organ. Starting therapy and management strategies during this valuable period of opportunity can fundamentally change a child’s future life path.
The problem, to a certain extent, is that traditional diagnosis of ASD is a slow, manual process. It requires intensively trained experts to watch a child play for hours and fill out complex checklists. In many countries, including Sri Lanka, where there is a massive shortage of these highly qualified specialists, the waiting list for a consultation alone can take months or even years. These doyens are rather thin on the ground and even when available, are heavily overworked.
Enter the AI Revolution: Seeing the Unseen
AI certainly does NOT replace doctors, but it acts like a high-powered magnifying glass. By using “Machine Learning”, computers can analyse massive amounts of data to find tiny patterns that the human eye might miss. Here is how it is changing the game:
1. Tracking Gaze and Smiles
One of the earliest signs of autism is how a child looks at the world. AI “Computer Vision” can analyse a simple video of a child playing. It can track exactly where the child is looking. Does the child look at a person’s eyes when they speak, or are they drawn to the spinning wheels of a toy in the corner? AI can quantify these “social attention” patterns in seconds and add them to a cache of things that ring warning bells.
2. The Sound of a Voice
Did you know that the “music” of a child’s speech can hold clues? AI can listen to the pitch and rhythm (called prosody) of a child’s voice. Children on the spectrum sometimes have a “flat” or monotonic way of speaking. AI algorithms can measure these vocal biomarkers with incredible precision, helping to flag concerns long before a child is old enough for a full conversation.
3. Movement and Play
Repetitive behaviour, like hand-flapping or rocking, are core traits of ASD. Sensors in smartphones or simple video analysis can now categorise these movements objectively. Instead of a parent trying to describe how often a behaviour happens, the application or ‘app’ provides a clear, data-driven report for the doctor.
Innovation at Home: India’s Digital Solutions
The most exciting part of this technology is that it does not require a million-dollar lab. In India, where smartphone use is booming, several “homegrown” apps are bringing specialist-level screening to rural and urban homes alike.
Apps like CogniAble, which give parents a step-by-step intervention plan based on the child’s specific needs, or START, a tablet-based tool used by local health workers in areas like Delhi slums to spot risks via simple games, or LEEZA.APP, which offers free AI screening to remove the “money barrier” that keeps many families from seeking help, or AutismBASICS, which provides thousands of activities and a milestone tracker to help parents manage daily therapy at home, are just a few of the programs in use at present. These tools are “democratising” healthcare. A mother in a remote village with a basic smartphone can now access the same level of screening logic that was once only available in a major city hospital.
Beyond the Diagnosis: A Robot Tutor?
The role of AI does not stop once a diagnosis is made. It is also becoming a tireless “co-therapist.”
For many children with autism, the human world can be unpredictable and overwhelming. AI-powered “Social Robots” or interactive apps provide a safe, predictable environment. These “Robo-Therapists” do not get tired, they do not get frustrated, and they can repeat a social lesson even 100 times until the child feels comfortable.
Furthermore, for children who are nonverbal, AI-powered communication apps serve as a “voice”. These apps use smart technology to predict what a child wants to say, allowing and facilitating them to express their needs and feelings to their parents, even for the very first time.
The Human Element: Proceed with Care
As bright as this dawn is, experts warn that we must move forward carefully and most intelligently.
= Privacy: Because these apps collect sensitive videos and data about children, keeping that information secure is a top priority.
= Cultural Differences: An AI trained on children in the US or Europe might not perfectly understand a child in Sri Lanka. We need “diverse local data” to ensure the algorithms understand our local languages, gestures, and social norms. Many of these programs need to be home-grown or baked at home in Sri Lanka.
= The Human Touch: Most importantly, we need to always remember that AI is a tool, not a replacement. A computer can spot a pattern, but it cannot give a hug, provide emotional support to a struggling parent, or celebrate a breakthrough with the same joy as a human therapist.
A Brighter Future
We are moving toward a world where “waiting and seeing” is no longer, and quite definitely, not the only option for parents. By combining the heart of a parent and the expertise of a doctor with the speed of an algorithm, we can ensure that no child is left behind because of where they live or how much money they have.
The “Algorithmic Dawn” is not just about code and data. It is about giving every child the best possible start in life. It is the main principle on which Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, all those centuries ago, based all his postulations on how physicians should work.
The “Red Flag” Checklist: 18 to 24 Months
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening all children at 18 and 24 months. If you notice several of these signs, it is time to use an AI screening app or consult your paediatrician.
Communication and Social Cues
= The Name Test: Does your child consistently fail to turn around or look at you when you call his or her name?
= The Pointing Test: By 18 months, most toddlers point at things they want (like a biscuit) or things they find interesting (like a dog). Is your child using your hand as a “tool” to get things instead of pointing?
= The Eye Contact Test: Does your child avoid looking at your face during social interactions or during play or when being fed?
= The Shared Smile: Does your child rarely smile back when you smile at him or her?
Behaviour and Play
= The Toy Test: Does your child play with toys in “unusual” ways? (e.g., instead of rolling a car, they spend 20 minutes just spinning one wheel or lining them up in a perfect, rigid line).
= The Routine Rule: Do they have an extreme “meltdown” over tiny changes, like taking a different route to the park or using a different coloured cup?
= Repetitive Motions: Do you notice frequent hand-flapping, rocking, or spinning in circles, especially when they are excited or upset?
The “Golden Rule” of Regression
Finally, an extremely important rule for concerned parents to follow.
If your little one had words (like “Mama” or “Dada” or “Amma” or “Thaththa” or Thaii/Amma or Appa) or social skills (like waving “Bye-Bye”) and a beautiful social smile etc, and then SUDDENLY STOPS USING THEM, that could be a most significant red flag. In such situations, the standard advice would be: Please consult a doctor immediately.
by Dr B. J. C. Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics),
MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK),
FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow,
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Features
Governance, growth and our regional moment:Why Sri Lanka must choose wisely
The recent disclosure of a substantial internal fraud at National Development Bank has understandably unsettled the financial community. What began as a relatively contained incident has since been revised upwards, revealing a scheme that operated over an extended period within a specific operational area. To their credit, both the bank and the Central Bank of Sri Lanka responded with speed. Staff were suspended, arrests followed, an independent forensic review was commissioned, and clear assurances were given that customer funds remained secure. The institution’s capital and liquidity positions continue to meet regulatory requirements, and day to day operations have not been disrupted.
Yet it would be a mistake to view this as an isolated operational error at a single respected institution. When a fraud of this magnitude, equivalent to more than a year’s profit for the bank, emerges within one of our most established listed companies, the implications extend well beyond the banking sector. It prompts a necessary and uncomfortable question. Are we truly strengthening the foundations of our economy so that every part of our society can operate with the integrity and confidence that sustainable progress demands?
Banking sits at the heart of any modern economy. It channels savings into investment, supports enterprise, and underpins household security. When even a leading institution reveals weaknesses in internal controls, risk oversight or governance culture, the signal to international observers is difficult to ignore. It suggests that the financial system upon which growth depends may not yet possess the resilience we aspire to project. If institutions that have undergone significant reform since 2022 can still experience such failures, what assurance can investors reasonably expect in other sectors of our economy? At a time when Sri Lanka needs to demonstrate strength and reliability, perceptions of fragility carry a heavy cost.
This matters profoundly because a genuine window of opportunity is now opening. Geopolitical shifts in the Middle East and beyond are prompting global investors and entrepreneurs to seek stable, well governed destinations for capital and talent. Sri Lanka possesses distinct advantages. Our geographical position offers natural connectivity. We have invested in critical infrastructure, including two major ports, international airports and strategic energy reserves. In an era where businesses prioritise rule of law, institutional predictability and sound fundamentals, our potential alignment with these criteria is significant. However, high profile governance failures at this precise moment risk undermining that narrative before it can gain meaningful traction.
The stakes are equally significant for initiatives such as the Port City Colombo. With substantial projects now approved, foreign investment commitments secured and early construction underway, this endeavour is moving from concept to delivery. Yet persistent concerns about governance standards in our established companies can act as a drag on investor sentiment. The confidence required to attract high value international tenants and long- term capital depends not only on physical infrastructure but on the perceived strength of our institutions and the consistency of our regulatory environment.
For decades, Sri Lanka has experienced growth averaging around four to five per cent per year. While this is not insignificant, it falls short of our potential, particularly when measured against the progress of our regional neighbours. India, for example, has sustained growth at roughly twice our rate for more than twenty years, driven by consistent policy execution and strengthening institutional credibility. Our own trajectory has been held back not by a lack of ideas or ambition, but by recurring shortcomings in how our major institutions are governed and held to account. The result is a cycle of unrealised potential, where promising openings are not fully converted into lasting advancement.
The current situation, though challenging, can serve as a catalyst for meaningful change. Boards of listed companies must move beyond procedural compliance to foster a genuine culture of ethical leadership, proactive risk management and zero tolerance for control failures. Regulators have an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of fraud prevention frameworks, whistle-blower protections and monitoring standards across the financial sector, with lessons applied to other key industries. Greater transparency in reporting material incidents and more timely forensic follow through will help rebuild trust with both domestic and international stakeholders.
Crucially, the government must tread carefully as it responds. Short term fixes or reactive measures may address immediate concerns but will not deliver the enduring stability that investors seek. What is required is a coherent long-term strategy that balances the imperative for rapid economic development with the equally vital need to conserve our natural environment and strengthen regional cooperation. Our neighbours in South Asia and Southeast Asia offer not only markets for trade and investment but also partners in shared challenges such as climate resilience, sustainable infrastructure and digital connectivity. By deepening these relationships through practical collaboration, Sri Lanka can position itself as a reliable and forward-looking partner in a dynamic region.
Sri Lanka stands at a pivotal moment. Global realignments are creating rare opportunities for capital inflows, technology transfer and new economic partnerships. Yet these opportunities will flow most readily to nations that demonstrate they can protect investor interests, uphold the rule of law and operate with predictability and transparency. If we allow governance weaknesses in our flagship institutions to persist, we risk once again watching potential pass us by.
This is a defining moment, and our response must be equally purposeful. We can treat the recent events as an unfortunate but isolated incident and return to established patterns. Or we can seize this moment as a timely reminder to strengthen every pillar of our economy, with particular attention to environmental stewardship and regional collaboration. Only by getting our house in order, with patience, consistency and a clear-eyed commitment to long term goals, can we convert today’s challenges into tomorrow’s competitive advantage. The path to sustained prosperity demands nothing less.
by Professor Chanaka Jayawardhena
Professor of Marketing
University of Surrey
Chanaka.j@gmail.com
-
Features6 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News6 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News4 days agoLankan-origin actress Subashini found dead in India
-
Features6 days agoBeyond the Blue Skies: A Tribute to Captain Elmo Jayawardena
-
News2 days agoAG: Coal procurement full of irregularities
-
Features6 days agoAspects of Ceylon/Sri Lanka Foreign Relations – 1948 to 1976
-
Business2 days agoHayleys Mobility introduces Premium OMODA C9 PHEV
-
Sports2 days agoDS to face St. Anthony’s in ‘Bridges of Brotherhood’ cricket encounter
