Features
Legislative reforms in Ceylon under the British up-to-date
By Nihal Seneviratne
It is widely accepted by all that the early beginnings of legislative reforms in Ceylon started with the arrival of the Colebrook and Cameron Commission in 1833. The commission named after its two prominent members, Johnston Colebrook and Charles Hay Cameron, played a pivotal role in shaping the future of the island.
This commission was established by the British colonial office with the aim of comprehensively studying and reforming various aspects of Ceylon society. One of the key areas of focus for the commission was the legal system of Ceylon. The commission recommended the establishment of a unified legal system based on the English common law which became the foundation for the modern legal system in Ceylon.
It also recommended the establishment of English medium schools which laid the groundwork for the introduction of Western education. In 1835 was established the Colombo Academy which in later years turned out to be Royal College founded by the Governor Horton.
However it is important to acknowledge that the commission recommendations were not without controversy. Some argued that the reforms favoured the interests of the British colonial administration and the emerging local elite while neglecting the rights and aspirations of the major population.
While the commission’s work has been the subject of debate and critique, it serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics between colonial powers and the societies they governed. It was over a long period that the British wanted to gradually handover power to the people. They were entirely conscious of the Sinhala and Tamil elite who did much for British interests and the rulers wanted to adjust the order of things to partly meet their demands.
Thus was established our Executive and Legislative Councils – the two cornerstones along with the Governor and the Colonial Secretary. The Executive Council comprised of six plus the governor and the Legislative Council consisted of all six members of the Executive Council plus four other members (the GA of the Western Province, the Surveyor General, the Principal Collector of Customs and the Attorney General). The unofficial members comprised Sinhalese, Tamils and Burghers. The European community was also represented.
Some of the Sinhalese representatives were Philip Panditaratne, J G Dias, E J Dedigama, James d’ Alwis, J P Obeysekere, William Ellawala and S W Wanninayake. The Tamil representatives were A Coomaraswamy Pulle, Simon Casie Chetty, Muttu Coomaraswamy, Ponnambalam Coomaraswamy, Ponnambalam Ramanathan, Dr W G Rockwood and A Kanagasabey. The Burgher representatives were R J Morgan, C A Lorensz, C A Ferdinando, J Vanculenberg, P D Anthonisz, A L Wendt, and J C Loos.
The functioning of these two councils were found to be ineffectual as there was a need to grant more power to the people. It was then that the Secretary of State for the Colonies appointed the Donoughmore Commission.
Dr Drummond Shields, Francis Butler and Lord Donoughmore arrived in Ceylon in 1927. They recommended universal suffrage for all men and women over 18-yers to be entitled to vote which was indeed a rare move for the countries in South East Asia. They recommended that the two Councils be replaced by a State Council. There were two State Councils elected – one from 1931 to 1936 and the other from 1936 to 1939.
The first State council was composed of 28 low country Sinhalese, 10 Kandyan Sinhalese, three Ceylon Tamils, two Indian Tamils, two Europeans and two Muslims.The second State Council comprised 31 low country Sinhalese, eight Kandyan Sinhalese, eight Ceylon Tamils, two Indian Tamils and one European.
The State Council had increased powers and could make laws on specific subjects – the State Council had a board of ministers which acted as the executive body. The board was responsible for the day-to-day administration of the country and the board had a minister for each subject and was appraised by the Governor.
The functioning of the two State Councils was found to be wavering and mediocre. So the British government appointed the Soulbury Commission to visit Ceylon and grant wider powers.
The Soulbury Commission comprised of (first Baron later Viscount Soulbury, J F Rees and S J Burrows. The British government, just after World War II was not quite ready to prepare a new constitution for Ceylon. The colonial office was not ready at all and they consulted Prime Minister D S Senanayake about drafting new legislation in Ceylon itself. The legal draftsmen at that time were two Britishers, Drayton and Nevill.
So the task of drafting a new constitution was passed on to the draftsmen, like Namasivayam Mahadeva and B P Pieris, who undertook the work. Sir Ivor Jennings was in Ceylon at the time and had prepared a draft – there was also the report of the Soulbury Commission, a whole paper embodying the demands of the UK government.
B P Pieris’ draft was finally approved by Drayton and Nevill and was submitted to D S Senanayake, the PM. It was widely believed that the Prime Minister had told B P Pieris that he would be hanged by his neck if there was any leak of the draft and moreover the CID had been put on the job to have surveillance over the drafts as it was considered a top secret.
The Soulbury Commission recommended a parliament of two houses- a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House of Representatives comprised a total of 101 MPs consisting of 95 elected members and six others nominated by the Governor General, on the advice of the PM. The Senate (ultimately abolished in 1971) was to comprise 30 members, 15 elected by the House and 15 appointed by the Governor General. The Ceylon Constitution Order-in-Council was approved by His Majesty the King and was gazetted.
The Soulbury Commission had two very important sections included in the new constitution- S 29 (2) which prevented any bill, motion or resolution being entertained in parliament which meant that no special advantage be conceded to any racial or religious group. The other section was re the appointment of a Public Service Commission. Under this no minister could appoint any public servant or transfer or take any disciplinary action against a public servant as the sole power was with the Public Service Commission.
Very sadly the PSC did not have these powers in the subsequent 1972 republican constitution. The standing orders of parliament were drafted by B P Pieris together with the help of Sir Edward Fellowes, clerk to the British House of Commons and by Ralph Deraniyagala the clerk of the House of Representatives.
The new government was established with the promulgation of the new constitution. The new Governor General Henry Monk-Mason Moore called on D S Senanayake to form a cabinet. This first cabinet of Ceylon comprised of 14 – namely J R Jayewardene, L A Rajapakse, S W R D Bandaranaike, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, George E de Silva, Sir John Kotalawela, Dudley Senanayake, R S S Gunawardene, C. Suntheralingam, T B Jayah, E A Nugawela, A Ratnayake and C Sittampalam.
The very first meeting was held on October 8, 1947. Order-in-Council to remove limitations of self-government in the Ceylon constitution was passed. The following motion was passed in Parliament:
“This House rejoices that after many years of subjugation to foreign rule the struggle of the people of Ceylon for freedom has culminated in the attainment of Independence.” The First Parliament was opened by the Duke of Gloucester.
Birth of the 1972 Constitution: Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike was appointed Prime Minister in 1972 and appointed Dr Colvin R de Silva as Minister of Constitutional Affairs. Mrs Bandaranaike moved a resolution in the House in July 1970 that all 225 Members of the House be appointed Members of the Constitutional Assembly to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka replacing the Soulbury Constitution.
Dr Colvin R de Silva was of the opinion that the Soulbury Constitution was established by the British Government and felt that a Sri Lanka-made constitution should replace it, severing all connections with the Soulbury Commission. It was decided that that all 225 MPs be a part of the Constituent Assembly and decided that they should meet at Navarangahala at the Royal Primary School.
This Constituent Assembly sat on 49 occasions from July 19, 1970 to May 22, 1972 at the Navarangahala Hall and deliberated. Dr de Silva chose Walter Jayawardene, a Barrister from the UK and close friend of his to be Secretary to the Constituent Assembly and Mr Sam Wijesinha and myself were appointed as Asst. Secretaries.
The shift towards a republican constitution was driven by the desire to establish a more independent and sovereign nation, free from the vestiges of colonial influence. One of the key features of the republican constitution was changing the name of the country from Ceylon to the Republic of Sri Lanka and making the last serving Governor-General of Ceylon, Mr. William Gopallawa as the first (Non-executive) President of the Republic. The new constitution symbolized the growing determination for the country to assert its own identity and self governance.
The Republican Constitution emphasized the concept of sovereignty and the unity of Sri Lanka as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation. It recognized Sinhalese as the official language promoting the cultural heritage of the majority Sinhala population. However this decision also created tensions and grievances among the Tamil-speaking minority communities leading to political and social unrest in the years to come.
Furthermore the republican constitution introduced a a unicameral legislature called the National State Assembly replaced by the previous bicameral system. The Prime Minister along with the cabinet became the executive body responsible for governing the country and implementing policies.
It is important to write that the 1972 Republican Constitution was not without its controversies and errors. Many argued that it marginalized minority communities and failed to address adequately their concerns. This laid the groundwork for subsequent constitutional reforms. This republican constitution was a significant turning point in the country’s constitutional history.
In 1977 J R Jayewardene came to power with a 5/6 majority. Soon after in October 29,, 1977 the leader of the House moved that a select committee be set up to consider a revision of the constitution.
On November 3, 1977 the Speaker made the announcement that J R Jayewardene be appointed as Chairman of the select committee and that Mr R Premadasa, Lalith Athulathmudali, Mr Ronnie de Mel, Mr Gamini Disanayake, Mr K W Dewanayagam, Mr M H M Naina Marikkar, Mr S Thondaman, Ms Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Mr Maithripala Senanayake be its members.
The committee sat for 14 days from January to June 1978. On August 10, 1978 the new constitution was adopted in the House. For the very first time we saw the departure from the Westminster system and the introduction of presidential system. Much has been written about its pros and cons and a controversy survives to this day.
A final, personal comment. It was President J R Jayewardene’s last day in parliament (before he became executive president). In the lobby of the parliament I went up to him and said “Sir you have a log history in this House and we are all sorry to not see you here any more.”
He replied: “Nihal, I want to see parliament from a distance and make up my mind. I will be in touch with parliament”, and left for the last time.
The writer is a retired Secretary General of the Sri Lanka Parliament.
Features
Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century
In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.
Ceasefire Hopes
Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.
Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.
Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.
In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”
Subversion from the Right
The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.
The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.
In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.
Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.
In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.
Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.
The rise and fall of Viktor Orban
Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.
At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.
To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.
Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.
During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.
Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.
The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.
Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.
For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.
The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.
EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.
by Rajan Philips
Features
ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries
Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.
ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.
At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.
By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.
Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.
Exhibition Details:
Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5
Features
Our Teardrop
BOOK REVIEW
Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)
Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3
The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.
On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.
Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.
Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.
However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.
There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.
There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.
L S M Pillai
-
Latest News7 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT arrive in Colombo
-
Latest News6 days agoPrasidh, Buttler set up comfortable win for Gujarat Titans
-
News4 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Latest News5 days ago“I extend my heartfelt wishes to all Sri Lankans for a peaceful and joyous Sinhala and Tamil New Year!” – President
-
Latest News6 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Business2 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
News2 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say

