Features
Friends I made along the way, meeting in Colombo and on to Malaysia
(Excerpted from Memories that linger: My Journey in the World of Disability by Padmani Mendis)
Barbara McNamee was from Jamaica. She became my friend when we met in the month of October in 1958 as student nurses at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital (ROH) in Birmingham, England. I have shared memories of our time together then in an earlier part of this memoir. We had been together for five years and three months. Mahin and Lyda both from Iran, then Persia were also with us.
The four of us became good friends during our first few days at the ROH. And we have remained close friends since then. In those first months, two calypso songs were particularly popular in the UK. They had just been released by the singer Harry Belafonte and were both about Jamaica. I enjoyed singing these to Barbara, especially when I saw that she was feeling a little low. One, “Island In The Sun” I mentioned a little earlier in this section. You may have heard the other “Jamaican Farewell”. They are available on YouTube. I occasionally send these to Barbara on WhatsApp just to remind her of the old days.
Barbara met Mike Rogers while she was at the ROH and he was a post-grad student at the University of Birmingham. They married soon after we completed our physiotherapy education. They had two children and spent the larger part of their lives in England.
Mahin left Iran much later to live in the USA and is now in Canada. She first had an Iranian husband and then an Egyptian one. Three stepsons living also in Toronto look out for her. Lyda also married an Englishman, Lewin Harris, and settled down in England. She passed on a few years ago. Barbara, Mahin and I still communicate regularly.
We last met five years ago. Mahin and I spent two weeks with Barbara in her home in Surrey, just outside London. Spent most of the time reminiscing with Barbara driving us around the picturesque Surrey countryside. Together with memorable meals in several old English Pubs. Much to the amusement of the other two, I always went for the Fish and Chips.
Following up in St. Lucia
There was every reason to believe that within this brief period CBR (Community Based Rehabilitation) had been well-established in St. Lucia. The country had plans to expand this programme.
One was able to reach the conclusion that the Manual had been an effective tool used by disabled people, their families and the Community Health Assistants. CHAs with a basic training of three months for their Primary Health Care work could with a further training of at least 12 days in a workshop situation and a further three weeks of field training and with regular and adequate support from a higher level carry out their rehabilitation tasks with disabled people successfully. The availability of second level support enhanced quality and coverage.
The Community Health Nursing Service or CHNS, recognising the value of the inputs from the two physiotherapists from the Victoria Hospital, intended to request the Ministry of Health for one of these therapists to be released to the CHNS. The CHNS was continuing its dialogue with the education sector to promote the inclusion of disabled children in local schools. They had started a conversation with employers regarding job opportunities for disabled youth and adults. And an information campaign to increase public participation in what was now a programme and no more a project.
I left St. Lucia confident that disabled people here had hope for the future.
Marcella Niles
But I cannot leave St. Lucia before including Marcella Niles in my story. The Community Health Nursing Service was her responsibility. As my counterpart she went everywhere with me. In Castries she drove me around herself in her own car. To go out of Castries we had access to a larger vehicle from the CHNS but often driven by Miss Niles herself. Marcella Niles was very proud of her island and quite rightly so.
She guided me to the most beautiful parts of St. Lucia. She would, whenever she could, take me through the town of Soufriere so that I could see the Pitons. And she always pointed them out to me – Big Piton and Small Piton, two tall volcanic spurs rising straight up from the sea, adjoining the coast. They were linked by some sort of a ridge.
On a few occasions when we had time to spare, she took me to see tropical rain forests which St. Lucia is well-known for. We in Sri Lanka have our own famous rain forest Sinharaja, which is a World Heritage Site. But these in St. Lucia were somehow different. Maybe had I gone deeper into our Sinharaja I would have found a similarity. In addition to the giant ferns and lush greenery, it was very, very wet all the time – as if a very slight rain was constantly falling. It was surprising that one could also see scrub forests in some parts of this small island.
For my stay in St. Lucia Marcella had found me accommodation in an Apartment Hotel, quite common in the Caribbean. This suited me well. It had a pool which none of the other residents appeared to use. So I had it to myself every evening after work.
After relaxing in the water, I would walk to the little shop at the bend in the road, not far down from me. There I would find something to cook for myself to eat with rice for the evening meal. May be some mixed vegetables or some fish. Whatever it was, it was tasty, cooked with St. Lucian curry powder. And always a luscious mango to follow. However good that mango was, it could not touch our delicious Jaffna mangoes for taste.
A Meeting in Sri Lanka
Before I move on from this phase of my journey in South America and the Caribbean, there was a meeting I must stop for. It was one I was called upon to organise – the WHO Interregional Consultation on CBR held in Colombo in June 1982.
WHO Interregional Consultation on CBR, 1982
It was almost three years since we had started work in the field. We felt the time was ripe to get the people who have been testing the Manual together to share experiences. Einar suggested that I organise the meeting in Colombo. Sri Lanka had also been participating in the field trial.
I was extremely fortunate and overjoyed to welcome to my own country so many friends I had made on my travels to their countries. Dr. Hindley-Smith asked for my help to organise a tour to places of historical interest and to the game parks. Others toured independently after the meeting was over. My country was, after all, a tourist attraction. And although I say it myself – it is beautiful.
When I had been in Jamaica, it had reminded me much of my own country. So much so that I had this in my thoughts. If ever, if ever I had to leave my motherland for some reason or another, I would settle down in Jamaica. That too was beautiful, particularly the northwest where I was, away from the tourist hot spot of Montego Bay. Not just the beaches and scenery, but more importantly, its people.
During our meeting Einar and Gunnel were guests in our home. This was not just enjoyable but also useful to have more time to spend in discussion and planning the next steps. For our meeting, 22 participants came together from all parts of the globe. Countries that had carried out field tests were Botswana, Burma, India (Kerala State), Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, St. Lucia and Sri Lanka. There were also others who were invited as representatives of WHO, other UN organisations and NGOs and some as individuals.
After an exchange of experiences from these countries, they spent much time giving their suggestions in detail as to what revisions should be made in the WHO Manual. These were taken into account when the Manual was revised the following year. CBR had been born.
Back to Asia – Malaysia
My First Contact with Malaysia
The first time I went to Malaysia was in 1983 to represent WHO at the Seventh Asia & Pacific Conference of Rehabilitation International, known globally as RI. It was founded in 1922 as an organisation that led discussion on issues related to disability at a global level. The climax of its work was a World Congress held every four years. On my stopover in Mexico, I referred to Dr. Hindley-Smith telling me about his participation at the RI Congress in Ireland in 1969. It brought about the realisation in him of the extent of neglect of disabled people in developing countries.
At that Congress, RI was promoting new thinking on personnel required for rehabilitation. It was looking at disability as a charity-based concept. In the 1980s it was promoting interventions for people with disability to improve their quality of life in a social context. Then, early in this millennium when the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had been approved, their interest evolved to the promotion of disability rights.
Correspondingly, CBR had been accepted by the World Health Assembly. Increasingly now, more countries were adopting this approach both for policy and implementation. My own CBR story is about the small part I played travelling from country to country assisting them to start putting policy into practice. Just planting a seed as it were. How that seed would germinate and into what kind of tree it would grow was left to be seen. But germinate it did and by the time I got to Malaysia I was amazed at the way CBR was maturing.
It was blending with the particular ethos of each country to meet the needs of its disabled people.Seventh Asia & Pacific Conference of Rehabilitation International, Kuala Lumpur, 1983 RI (Rehabilitation International), the world body had some regional branches. Every two years RI organised a meeting in one of its regions. This first one I was invited to was in the Asia Pacific Region.
I was a speaker at a Plenary Session on the second day of the conference. The speaker before me was Dr. Siti Hasmah binti Haji Mohamad Ali, wife of the Prime Minister of Malaysia who we know as Mahathir Mohamed.
The topic of her presentation was a rather general one, focusing on the family as a vital provider of care. I had an opportunity of speaking with her in the break that followed the panel discussions. She told me her particular interest at that time was improvement in the situation of rural women.
That is why she had agreed to participate at this conference. She felt the discussion we had would help to promote her cause. I learned later that she and her husband had met at Medical School. They had been married soon after they left university.
I had been invited to present a paper on “CBR as a Relevant Approach for Developing Countries’. I included in the paper my thoughts on why a new approach was necessary with data from Sri Lanka. I also included a précis of the approach with examples, that WHO had adopted assisting countries to develop and of how it had impacted the quality of life of individuals and families; and a few results with statistical data from three countries – Botswana, Mexico and Sri Lanka, in three continents; and mention of its relationship to Primary Health Care, which at that time provided an entry point with the infrastructure.
My conclusions were that, “The results to date indicate emphatically that the approach is suited to the needs of developing countries… The quality of results cannot be questioned – for where better to provide freedom of mobility, create independence in daily life activities and enable disabled people to participate in the mainstream of community life than in the environment of their own communities?”
“The integration of disabled children in existing local schools and the provision of income generating opportunities within their own communities has ensured for disabled people full participation with true integration, starting with the family. It has done away with the need for them to be transported to a new and strange environment to be rehabilitated”.
Is CBR a Medical Model?
These results above are those that critics argued made CBR a “Medical Model” propagated by WHO. Some said this was because CBR was concerned also with functional independence. I say that maximal functional independence is an indication of an individual’s health status, beyond a medical condition. Improvement in the health of an individual is a human right. Besides, even an individual’s functional independence is not possible without social change in the community the individual lives in.
My own finding and therefore my argument was that participation in community life be it educational, functional or economic, cannot happen without a change in community attitudes. And with that an acceptance of disabled people on the basis of equality. An approach that was at this time being called “the Social Model”. CBR, based on the responsibility of the community, brought about a social change.
But I also saw CBR go beyond a purely social foundation; it also extended to enabling disabled people enjoy the same opportunities and responsibilities as others in their communities, an approach that is now called “the Human Rights Model”.
The world of disability did not use the words “human rights” at that time. But this was CBR’s needs-based approach, enabling equality in all matters including human rights. What is important is that CBR was not, for instance an individual-based, service-based approach reaching out from centres in districts or elsewhere. In these instances, responsibility lay with those centres, not with the communities in which disabled people lived.
Introducing CBR to Malaysia
It was against this background that the Government of Malaysia requested WHO cooperation to initiate CBR. In response, WHO sent me there for three months from February to May 1994. The mandate for matters related to disability lay with the Ministry of Social Welfare.
Initial discussions were with the Secretary of this Ministry. We talked about what he expected from me and about how I would set about the task he had set me. I said that WHO’s advice to countries was that the Manual, “Training in the Community for People with Disabilities”, be used as a tool for empowering disabled people and families with the knowledge and skills they required to start any change. I said without this tool for empowerment translated into Bahasa Malaysia CBR would be difficult for me to initiate in three months.
The Secretary called together ten members of his senior office staff. He removed the cord that held the different modules of the Manual together and separated the modules into ten lots. Giving one lot to each of his staff he said, “Could you please translate these and let me have them back by Monday?” Typed and photocopied, a sufficient number of Manuals were available to us when we required them. Such was the dynamism of this man who led the Ministry of Social Welfare at that time. I thought to myself, with this leadership anything should be possible.
So far, in other countries I had introduced CBR at the grass roots, promoting the development of a system upwards to support it. The structure for CBR was as yet incomplete in those countries, because appropriate mid-level personnel were lacking. This was a serious constraint for ensuring effectiveness as well as for sustainability.
Here in Malaysia for the first time, I was introducing CBR within a support system which had responsibility for disability – the Social Welfare Ministry. The Ministry had Social Welfare Assistants or SWAs at district level. To support them were Social Welfare Officers or SWOs at state level. Among them would be mid-level workers. They required relevant knowledge and skills in CBR. They required also to have this task included in their job descriptions. Then the focal points for a CBR system would be in place at the two support levels.
It would be up to officials at these levels to build the horizontal linkages within and outside government at each level that would together provide communities with the support they required. In development jargon this was called multi-sectoral collaboration. In reality, it sometimes worked in bits and pieces, often it did not. Much work was required here globally.
Local Accommodation
During the three months that I spent in Malaysia I was to work in Batu Rakit in the State of Terengganu on the east coast. Batu Rakit was a “Mukim” or sub district just over a half-hour drive from Kuala Terengganu, the capital of the state.
Our teaching area was rural. It was a quiet fishing village with the appearance of serenity and tranquillity. I was fortunate to be given accommodation here in a kind of rest house run by the state. This was a simple building set in a large property scattered with very tall coconut trees. There were a few rooms and some common bathrooms and toilets. The female participants from other states were accommodated in this rest house with me. Other participants found lodging in homes in the area. Evening meals to all were provided at the rest house. Because of this the group found much time to get to know each other and to talk about areas of common interest including work.
I liked very much the local food that was served. It was simple. “Nasi” means rice which is the staple in every meal. Here it was white rice served with Malaysian “curry”. Curries were in no way like ours, but this is what the dishes were called in English.
They were cooked with what we may call a raw curry powder – turmeric, coriander, cumin, cardamom, cloves, cinnamon and ginger, with such condiments added in different proportions. As a result of these particular condiments, the taste was subtle quite unlike ours which tends to be spicy, even our white curries.
The rice was served with many different vegetables, and always fish from the village. My favourite Malaysian dish was nasi dagang. For special Malaysian dishes such as these, the rice is cooked in coconut milk, and it turns out rather like our milk rice or “kiributh”. Except that it is flavoured with pandan leaf or “rampe”.
The tastiest nasi dagang I had was served in the Hotel in Kuala Terengganu where I stayed for a few days before moving to Batu Rakit. It was served with fried sprats, shrimp sambol, a boiled egg and cucumber. What we eat as nasi lemak in Colombo or even the food in Kuala Lumpur is nothing like the Malaysian food I ate in Kuala Terengganu. There, food was very tasty with the subtle flavours of the food itself.
In Colombo I now eat Malaysian food with a rather spicy chicken curry, adapted to suit the local palate. In all my later visits to Kuala Lumpur staying in international hotels as I did, I was not able to find the original Malaysian food that I had enjoyed in the rest house in Batu Rakit.
Of the several MOUs signed by the President of Sri Lanka during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka, the most consequential in respect of implications to Sri Lanka is the one associated with the Defence Cooperation. Neither the public nor the Parliament is aware of its contents. What the public could glean about the scope of this vital MOU are from articles written by concerned citizens, like the one by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in the Daily FT of April 10, 2025. The source of his material is from statements made by the President during political rallies relating to the Defence Cooperation MOU. One such statement is cited below. This reflects a seismic shift in respect of Sri Lanka’s relations not only with India, but also with other Nation-States, that is disturbing to say the least, because of its implications on Sri Lanka’s autonomy to act independently as a sovereign Nation-State and define its own destiny; a status Sri Lanka defended for nearly 2500 years despite repeated interruptions over the years.
SECURING ASSISTANCE
Justifying the need for Defence Cooperation with India, President Dissanayake is reported to have stated the following at an election meeting in Galle:
“We need security in this region. We need to safeguard the security of this region. We should secure the assistance of those who have greater technological capacities in defence, greater skills in defence. If not, how can a country move forward? …. For 76 years the world developed rapidly in science and technology. The world developed rapidly in military science. Now, what should we do? We must secure the assistance of those states which have accepted new science and technology. Don’t we have to do that”? (Ibid).
There are two pivotal issues that arise from the President’s comments. The first is discarding the principle of SELF-RELIANCE (SR). SR is the bedrock of Sri Lanka’s civilizational values. The inspiration to rely on one’s SELF to evolve answers to inscrutable questions or to challenges that present themselves as insurmountable comes from the single-minded approach adopted by Lord Buddha in his search for liberation. His attempts to seek the assistance of others failed him. It was the relentless determination to find the answers himself to what he was looking for, that enabled him to realise his goal; a goal that has benefited mankind.
The role model set by him was what inspired the spirit of SELF RELIANCE that enabled Sri Lanka to create a civilisation that was unique over millennia. It was not created by military conquest. It was not created by developing “military science”. The monuments left behind are a testimony to the ingenuity and skills of the People of Sri Lanka. It was they, who developed the technologies needed for the Sri Lankan nation to lead a life of peace and contentment.
Throughout Sri Lanka’s history, its sovereignty has been repeatedly violated and its territory vandalised by invading armies. Whenever such invasions occurred, liberation and freedom came from military strategies developed and adopted by those within by relying on SR. They did not go running to sign MOUs seeking assistance from militarily powerful nations. On the other hand, whenever our Rulers sought the assistance of external powers, such as the Dutch, to get rid of the Portuguese who had invaded the country, the Dutch ended up colonising the whole country for nearly 150 years until they lost it to the British, who in turn colonised for a further 150 years. The Defence Cooperation MOU with India has the potential to repeat that history.
SAFEGUARDING REGIONAL SECURITY
The President has stated: “We need security in this region. We need to safeguard the security of this region”. If this is a policy of this government, in what way could Sri Lanka contribute towards the “security of this region”? Is there a clear understanding as to how Sri Lanka and India are going to undertake safeguarding the security of the region? Whatever it may be, there is no doubt that the contribution Sri Lanka can afford to make is insignificant compared with what India would be making because it is in India’s self-interest as an aspiring Global Power to make the region secure. Furthermore, because of this disparity, the MOU would entitle India to enforce its will as to how regional security is exercised. Does this not amount to sacrificing Sri Lanka’s strategic autonomy?
If it did, would it not compel Sri Lanka to be under the hegemony of India; a condition that would only bolster the security of India based on India’s notion that the security of India depends on the security of Sri Lanka, meaning a weakened Sri Lanka under the control of India? On the other hand, if Sri Lanka exercises its independence and acts in pursuit of its own self-interests, and such actions do not mesh with that of India in its pursuit of becoming a global power, there would be consequences.
Therefore, any arrangement that compromises the independence of Sri Lanka and its ability to exercise its Self- Reliance has to be mindful of India’s interests. This does not mean that Sri Lanka should not heed India’s concerns and interests. Instead, it only means pursuing Sri Lanka’s interests while being conscious of India’s sensibilities, as it was with the Chinese “research vessel”. However, under a Defence Cooperation MOU, it would be India that would decide the parameters as to whether to permit entry of foreign vessels or not; a constraint that would compromise Sri Lanka autonomy to pursue its self-interests.
IMPACT on FOREIGN POLICY
An alignment with a power that the President describes as: “We sincerely applaud the way India has positioned itself not only as a regional power, but also as global power” (Ibid), means Sri Lanka has decided to disassociate itself with its long cherished position of being Non-Aligned as a founding member of Non-Aligned Movement, that morphed recently into being Neutral in the context of emerging Great Power rivalries in this region. By aligning exclusively with a country that is positioning itself to be a global power and at the cost of distancing itself in its relations with other Global Powers, comes not only at a cost that Sri Lanka cannot afford to bear in the background of overdue debt to them, but also a degree of dependence that is unknown and unfamiliar to independent Sri Lanka.
The need to seek exclusive relations with India is in the hope that India would assist Sri Lanka in case such a need arises because Sri Lanka does not have the needed “military science” to defend itself, not realising that there is no free lunch; a fact attested by Sri Lanka’s own history. The President and this Government must accept the hard reality that Sri Lanka or any other small country can ever hope to match the degree of “military science” capabilities that Global Powers possess. At the end of the day, it is a smart strategy that matters more than the stacks of military hardware by countries such as Sri Lanka; a fact demonstrated by David’s sling shot against the might of Goliath.
For instance, Sun Tzu, in “The Art of War”, states: “What is essential for leaders, generals, and ministers in running countries and governing armies is no more than … peak efficiency of knowledge and strategy is to make conflict altogether unnecessary. To overcome others’ armies without fighting is the best of skills”. It is clear from the wisdom of the ages that effective intelligence gathering and appropriate strategy is far more relevant for the security of a Nation such as Sri Lanka than relying on the unrealistic notion of military science to ensure its security.
CONCLUSION
During an election rally, the President is reported to have stated that there is a need not only to “safeguard security for the region”, but also that Sri Lanka “must secure the assistance of those states which have accepted this new military science technology” if Sri Lanka is to move forward. These objectives are to be incorporated in a Defence Cooperation MOU with India.
How Sri Lanka is to contribute to “safeguarding the security of the region”, or what form and type of the assistance Sri Lanka expects from India, is not made public. Despite such lacunae, the implication of any form of Defence Cooperation exclusively with a country such as India that is “positioning” itself to be a global Power or one that is already recognised as a Global Power, is bound to affect Sri Lanka’s relations not only with other Global Powers but also with other countries as well.
Furthermore, exclusive alignment with one Power means that Sri Lanka has decided to ditch not only the principle of Non-Alignment and its concepts that it championed for decades, but also, more appropriately, Neutrality, in the emerging context of Great Power rivalries in the region. Such exclusive arrangements for assistance with one country compel Sri Lanka to be in the vortex of India and its interests, the consequence of which for Sri Lanka is to be a vassal State of India.
The nearly 2,500-year old history of Sri Lanka has been to resist and defend such attempts. Throughout its history Sri Lanka has relied on its own strengths and abilities and created the spirit of Self-Reliance modeled on the example set by the founder of the religion of the majority of Sri Lanka. That is to develop its own strategies to create a unique civilization in which its People enjoyed peace and contentment. However, there were occasions when weak leaders abandoned the rewards of Self-Reliance and sought the assistance of the Dutch to overcome the threat of Portuguese occupation, and ended up being colonized for over nearly 150 years. The planned Defence Cooperation MOU with India could very well be a repeat of that history; an outcome that would permanently ensure India’s security.
The attempt to seek external assistance to “move forward” is founded on the misguided concept that without the military and technological strength of external agents, Sri Lanka cannot move forward. In view of the fact that countries such as Sri Lanka cannot ever hope to match the capabilities of those who have advanced military technologies, the choice left to Sri Lanka is to be guided by the wisdom of the ages cited above, and develop “efficiency of knowledge and strategy”.
That means, the compelling need for Sri Lanka to develop its Intelligence and strategic capabilities to a very much higher level than what exists today so that Sri Lanka is in a position to make conflict both internal or external unnecessary. The importance of strategy over Military capabilities is starkly made evident by the experience of the US in Vietnam. Notwithstanding the fact that the US possesses the most advanced military hardware in the world, the US lost the war in Vietnam because of a wrong strategy. The US relied totally on the capabilities of their military hardware and forgot the strategy of David’s slingshot. The hope is that the President is made aware of these lessons of history.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Professor Basil Laliputhra Tennekoon, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Moratuwa, was called to rest on 30 March 2025 at the age of 82. He was educated at S. Thomas’ College, Mt. Lavinia, where he won the Miller Mathematics Prize in 1960, an achievement that gets one’s name on a board in the college hall. The prize is named after Rev. Edward Miller, the fifth warden of the school, who had read mathematics at Cambridge. Young Tennekoon fulfilled this early promise, obtaining first class honours in civil engineering from the University of Peradeniya in 1965. There were many Thomians who entered the engineering faculty with him, including Shanthi Kumar Rasaratnam (now holding an MBE for services to water engineering in the UK), Mano Ponniah (who later played first class cricket for Cambridge and All-Ceylon), and Gerard Rodrigo (subsequently a Marxist development economist).
Lal Tennekoon went on to complete his PhD at Cambridge University in 1970, on the behaviour of foundations on sandy soils. Other notable Peradeniya graduates/academics who completed PhDs in Cambridge around this time included Alagiah Thurairajah (1962, on shear properties of soils), Munidasa Ranaweera (1969, on the finite element method applied to limit analysis) and Vickramabahu Karunaratne (1970, on plasma physics) – halcyon days for Peradeniya engineering, no doubt. For six years after his PhD, Tennekoon was attached to the Faculty of Engineering at Peradeniya, teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He joined the Katubedda Campus of the University of Sri Lanka in 1975 and became a Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Moratuwa in 1984 and Senior Professor in 1994. Moratuwa was fortunate to obtain his services. When I once suggested that his moving to Moratuwa was a result of “the best people gravitating to the best places”, his rejoinder was that he would have found it difficult, after he got married to Preethi, to keep pace with Thurairajah’s work ethic in the Peradeniya soil mechanics lab!
He guided the fortunes of the Civil Engineering Department as its Head from 1980 to 1985, during which time the annual undergraduate intake was increased from 50 to 100, and a new civil engineering complex was constructed to accommodate that increase. He also steered the Faculty of Engineering as its Dean for 10 months in 1994/1995, when there was sharp division in the university regarding the continuation of the NDT programme within the Faculty.
Professor Tennekoon’s main research interests were based around the problems facing the geotechnical engineers of this country. These were in the areas of: (i) Shallow foundations in low lying areas containing peat and organic clays; (ii) Pile foundations terminating on rock; (iii) Landslides and the stabilisation of slopes; and (iv) Site Investigations for all types of civil engineering structures. He also chaired the Moratuwa University’s Senate Research Committee from around 1998 to 2002 and was responsible for setting up the Research Awards Scheme, which contributed significantly to raising research quality at the university.
Over his illustrious career, he provided assistance to many development projects in the country during their planning, design and construction stages, in the collection and interpretation of geotechnical data. Notable contributions have been in (i) the Environmental Improvement Project for the city of Colombo; (ii) the Southern Highway Project from Colombo to Matara; (iii) the Beira Lake Restoration Project; and (iv) several multi-storeyed building projects such as Ceylinco Celestial Towers, Crescat Towers, HNB Tower, Bank of Ceylon Tower, Central Bank Tower and Havelock City Project. He worked closely with Geotech (Pvt) Ltd, where his close friend Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe was Managing Director. At times he enlisted the services of his colleagues, most of them his juniors. The consideration paid by this senior engineer to the disciplinary competencies of his younger associates only served to increase our own reciprocal respect for him.
Professor Tennekoon served as the principal author for the development of two standards for the Institute of Construction Training and Development (ICTAD), in which his research findings were also incorporated. The two standards were in the areas of ‘Site Investigation’, and ‘Pile foundations end bearing on rock’; and were published by the Sri Lanka Standards Institution (SLSI). He was a Founder Member of the Sri Lanka Geotechnical Society (SLGS) in 1987; and held its Presidency from 1994 to 2000. He was recognised for his contributions to the Geotechnical Engineering profession in Sri Lanka by the SLGS at an International Conference organised by the Society in 2007. The Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka bestowed on him an Award for Excellence in 2008. He was elected a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka in 2013.
In April 2003, Professor Tennekoon was invited by the Government of Sri Lanka to be part of a team for implementing the World Bank funded project for the Improvement of Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE). This was a 6-year project where the major component was the establishment of a Quality Enhancement Fund (QEF). This was to be a strategy in which quality and relevance were to be improved through the entire university system by the implementation of a competitive funding scheme. Professor Tennekoon was responsible for the implementation of this QEF component, which often involved choosing between competing study programmes. His dispassionate judgment and clinical impartiality ensured the smooth operation of this project; it also endeared him to virtually the entire university community in Sri Lanka. Some of us wondered whether he was deserting his primary calling to engineering through this involvement, but he was only broadening his horizons. He later became passionate about outcome based engineering education, and chaired the Accreditation Board of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, responsible for accrediting engineering programmes under the Washington Accord.
Twenty eight years ago, Lal Tennekoon suffered a massive heart attack and was in the intensive care unit for many days. His loving wife Preethi and his children Layanthi and Banuka rarely left the hospital premises, at times camping out on its staircases, as I recall. Theirs was clearly a very loving family. How fortunate that we all got him back from the brink of death. From a private communication he circulated to some of us soon after, I am aware that he was extremely grateful to all who attended on, ministered to and prayed for him. He himself looked after his wife caringly, eschewing all professional and other engagements, towards the end of her life. Preethi’s demise hastened his own.
Professor Lal Tennekoon was an illustrious but utterly unpretentious and much loved academic; a greatly sought after and highly respected geotechnical consultant; and a passionate advocate for outcome based engineering education. His twin concerns for practice oriented research on the one hand and engineering education on the other, continue to be nurtured by those he engaged with. His geotechnical expertise endures in the careers of his one-time students, all now emeritus or full professors themselves – Professor Anuruddha Puswewala (rock mechanics); Professor Athula Kulathilake (slope stability); Professor Saman Thilakasiri (piled foundations); Professor Udeni Nawagamuwa (environmental geotechnics); and Professor Nalin de Silva (shallow foundations).
Professor Priyan Dias (a student and later colleague of Professor Lal Tennekoon)
(Continued from yesterday)
China and Sri Lanka discovered that their interests were closely aligned in the evolving post-war strategic landscape. China served as a vital diplomatic shield for Sri Lanka, particularly in countering UN resolutions amid international scrutiny over its actions. For China, Sri Lanka was a crucial link in the Belt and Road Initiative, serving as a strategic hub for infrastructure investment in the Indian Ocean region.
Since 2009, Sino-Sri Lanka relations have expanded rapidly across multiple sectors. China has emerged as Sri Lanka’s leading source of foreign direct investment (FDI), funding large-scale infrastructure projects such as the Hambantota Port, Mattala Airport, the Southern Expressway, the Norochcholai coal power plant, and a $500 million expansion of Colombo’s South Harbour. In May 2013, the two countries signed a Strategic Cooperative Partnership (SCP), encompassing trade, investment, financial assistance, and strategic cooperation. The geopolitical implications of these developments are evident in projects like the Trincomalee-based Sri Lankan Air Force maintenance workshop awarded to a Chinese firm.
These initiatives triggered reactions from regional powers, particularly India and Japan, which view them as components of China’s expanding “Maritime Silk Road” and “String of Pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean. India and the United States have formally conveyed concerns to Sri Lankan authorities about the strategic implications of China’s involvement in the Hambantota Harbour and Colombo Port City projects. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy has shown little strategic foresight and diplomatic acumen in managing this delicate situation.
Foreign policy Dilemmas of Yahapalanaya: Breakthroughs and Vacillations
The domestic context of foreign policy shifted once again when the National Unity Government (NUG), commonly known as Yahapalana government, came to power following the Presidential election on January 8, 2015. The blatant democracy backsliding since 2009, coupled with misuse of power, widespread corruption and state extravagance, gust a political wind—originating within civil society—that ultimately unseated the seemingly invincible Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. A new discourse on democracy and good governance emerged, shaping the narrative in guiding political development. Soon after coming to power, the Yahapalana government introduced the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on April 28, 2015, as an initial step toward broad democratic reforms. The amendment imposed checks on the President’s executive powers and included certain provisions to promote good governance. The country’s political atmosphere changed markedly after the unseating of the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the Yahapalana government signaled its willingness to engage more constructively with the international community, particularly the United Nations, departing from the confrontational approach of its predecessor. This shift was evident in several key developments. In March 2015, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) visited Sri Lanka, followed by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) in November—the latter marking its first visit in 16 years. The government’s changed approach was most notably demonstrated at the 30th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, where Sri Lanka collaborated with other Council members to co-sponsor the resolution Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability, and Human Rights in Sri Lanka, which was adopted by consensus.
The initial steps taken by the Yahapalana
government in democracy building and good governance helped restore democratic credibility of Sri Lanka before the international community. The focus on good governance, accountability, and anti-corruption resonated with Western countries that champion these principles in the international arena. In addition to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, there were other initiatives in that direction. The right to information was incorporated into the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution, making it a judicially enforceable right. A key milestone in this regard was the enactment of the Right to Information Act, which, after a prolonged gestation period, was finally implemented in February 2017. Meanwhile, the process of drafting a new constitution began with the transformation of Parliament into a Constituent Assembly. A Steering Committee was established, which submitted its interim report on September 26, 2017.
The international pressure that was mounting on Sri Lanka before 2015 was eased significantly due to the Yahapalana government’s approach to national reconciliation. This approach was built on four key main pillars: truth-seeking, the right to justice, reparation, and non-recurrence. As an initial step, the government appointed the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) on January 26, 2016.
Amid changing domestic dynamics, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy priorities were redefined, particularly in relation to its three geopolitical spheres. The Indian Ocean once again became a priority in foreign policy, reflected in the establishment of the Indian Ocean Secretariat under the Prime Minister’s purview. Recognising shifts in the regional and global balance of power—across South Asia, the Indian Ocean, and beyond—the Yahapalana government sought to restore balance in its foreign policy. India, an emerging blue-water naval power, is Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour. China, a rising superpower with an expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean, remains Sri Lanka’s principal source of foreign direct investment. Meanwhile, the United States, the dominant naval power in the region, continues to play a crucial role. Sri Lanka’s economic ties also shaped its foreign policy calculus. While India is its second-largest trading partner, China remains a major investor. At the same time, Western markets continue to be vital for Sri Lanka’s exports, with 27% of total exports going to the United States, 27% to the EU, and 10% to Britain. India is Sri Lanka’s second largest trading partner.
Sri Lanka has preferred to be in the Indian Ocean framework rather than the broader Indo-Pacific construct. Recognising the strategic volatility of the region, the Yahapalanaya government maintained that the dominance of the Indian Ocean by any single power would be detrimental to Sri Lanka’s national interests. At this critical juncture, a small island state like Sri Lanka cannot afford to be a passive observer. Sri Lanka has consistently championed a peaceful and stable maritime environment. Ensuring freedom of navigation and securing sea lanes of communication remain central to this vision.
The Yahapalana Government prioritized economic diplomacy. Recognising the global shift in economic and financial power toward ‘emerging Asia’, the government understood that the Indian Ocean was becoming a focal point of global economic influence. In this context, a key policy challenge was determining how best to leverage Sri Lanka’s strategic location and human capital to integrate into Asia’s economic growth.
Sri Lanka’s deepening economic crisis, particularly its mounting debt repayment challenges, had profound implications for its foreign policy under the Yahapalana government. In an effort to mitigate its balance of payment problem, the government signed a controversial agreement in August 2017 with China Merchants Port Holdings (CM Port), leasing a 70% stake in the Hambantota Port for 99 years in exchange for $1.12 billion. This deal not only underscored Sri Lanka’s growing dependence on Chinese investment to manage its financial distress but also highlighted the complex interplay between economic crisis and strategic foreign policy decisions. While the agreement carried significant political and geopolitical ramifications, Sri Lanka’s options at the time appeared severely limited.
Although the Yahapalana government prioritised economic diplomacy, its track record in this area was not impressive. Efforts to revive the economy through foreign investment yielded underwhelming results. The government worked hard to secure Sri Lanka’s qualification for the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact grant. Ultimately, in April 2019—toward the end of its tenure—MCC offered Sri Lanka a $480 million outright grant to upgrade urban transport, modernise the land registration system, and build rural roads connecting highways. Similarly, the Yahapalana government entered into an agreement with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for a Light Rail Transit (LRT) project under highly concessional terms. However, the project failed to take off before the 2019 presidential election.
The Yahapalana government’s indecision and delays were evident in the development of the East Container Terminal (ECT). After prolonged uncertainty, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) finally signed a tripartite agreement with the governments of Japan and India in May 2019 to develop the terminal. However, before finalising the restructuring of the India-Japan joint venture and the capital infusion plan, the Yahapalana government collapsed. The government’s hesitation in making critical policy decisions, even after initiating processes with major international partners, has eroded Sri Lanka’s credibility on the global stage.
Given the significance of the Tamil Diaspora in the international public sphere, engaging with them remained a key challenge in Sri Lanka’s post-war foreign policy. Successive Sri Lankan governments, both during and after the war, struggled to establish a constructive dialogue with the Tamil Diaspora, largely due to their failure to recognise its diversity. As Foreign Minister of the Yahapalana Government (2015–2017), Mangala Samaraweera made a concerted effort to engage with the Diaspora, particularly the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), aiming to integrate them into Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process. However, his initiative remained largely personal and lacked broader government support. Following his departure from the Foreign Ministry in mid-2017, the effort lost momentum.
The Yahapalana government struggled to sustain its initial momentum in promoting democracy and good governance, ultimately failing to maintain a consistent policy direction. Indecision and frequent policy reversals came to define its domestic governance. A key example was its approach to transitional justice. While the government initially demonstrated enthusiasm for establishing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), this commitment soon waned. By the time the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) submitted its final report in November 2016, the initial drive had significantly diminished. Notably, neither the President nor the Prime Minister attended the report’s handover, signaling a lack of political will. After prolonged delays, the OMP was finally established in March 2018—almost two years after its initial proposal, highlighting the government’s slow and inconsistent approach to key reforms.
Divisions within the government emerged before its second year in office, preventing a unified stance on key policies, including foreign affairs. On critical issues, the President, Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister often voiced conflicting positions, creating confusion. This persistent inconsistency left the international community uncertain and bewildered.
The rift between the President and the Prime Minister of the Yahapalana Government reached a crisis point on October 26, 2018, when the President dismissed the Prime Minister and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. The Supreme Court later ruled the President’s actions unconstitutional and reversed his decisions. However, this exposed the underlying tensions within the Yahapalana Government, turning a hidden cold war into an open conflict that paralysed the country’s public administration. Meanwhile, the Central Bank bond scam inflicted irreparable damage on the government’s anti-corruption credibility. The faltering pace of democratic reforms, economic stagnation, and infighting within the political leadership created a bleak political atmosphere. In this context, the carefully coordinated suicide bombings on April 21, 2019, carried out by a little-known Islamic terrorist group, shifted the national discourse from democracy and good governance to security and strong leadership.
by Gamini Keerawella
(To be continued)
China races robots against humans in Beijing half marathon
US judge finds Google illegally monopolised ad tech market
US strikes on Yemen oil terminal kill at least 74, Houthis say
-
Business7 days agoMembers’ Night of the Sri Lanka – Russia Business Council of The Ceylon Chamber of Commerce
-
Features7 days agoLiberation Day tariffs chaos could cause permanent damage to US economy, amid global tensions
-
Features7 days agoMinds and Memories picturing 65 years of Sri Lankan Politics and Society
-
Business23 hours agoDIMO pioneers major fleet expansion with Tata SIGNA Prime Movers for ILM
-
Sports7 days agoLankan legends, Modi and the Jaffna dream
-
Opinion7 days agoEnd of an Era: Passing away of Raja Uncle (Mr. Rajapaksha)
-
Features7 days agoRepentance Leads to Passion
-
Features7 days agoRecollections of two past Aprils