Features
Mayhem starts in Mirihana! Where will it go? How will it end?
by Rajan Philips
Thursday/Friday (March 31/April 1)
6:00 PM
– Protesters gather at the Jubilee Post in their “tens of thousands”.
7:30 PM
– March towards Pengiriwatte Road leading to the President’s private residence.
8:39 PM
– “Several hundreds” protest at Pengiriwatte Road, chanting “Gota, Go Home.”
9:48 PM
– Tense situation as protesters try to the break police barricades.
10:27 PM
– Tear gas and water cannons fired as protesters break through barricades.
11:51 PM
– Sri Lankan Army bus and jeep set on fire. Vehicles overturned.
12:30 AM
– Kandy-Colombo Road blocked by protesters at the Bulugaha junction.
12:32 AM
– Injured people admitted to hospitals in Colombo and Kalubowila.
12:43 AM
– Police curfew imposed in Colombo and Nugegoda Police Divisions.
05:59 AM
– Police curfew lifted.
Online media registered the above timeline as Thursday night and Friday morning as protests unfolded near the private residence of President Rajapaksa in Mirihana. Sri Lankans at home and abroad, from Colombo to California, saw live reporting of the events. Over 30 people, including journalists, have been admitted to hospitals with injuries. Over 40 people have been arrested. The Presidential Media Division (PMD) has called Thursday’s events “unrest” and “riot” and blamed them on an unnamed “extremist group.”
While social media has been telling everyone about a major protest planned for Sunday, April 3, there has been little or no public intimation about the Mirihana protests, except for reported warning by state intelligence sources. On Friday morning, The Daily Mirror reported continuing “public outrage against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sports Minister Namal Rajapaksa” on social media. And public demonstrations are reportedly expected to continue on Saturday with a ‘white cloth’ campaign outside the Nelum Pokuna theater. Candlelight protests have been going on in several parts of the country as it plunged into darkness with extensive power cuts.
There is no clear information about the organization of the protest planned for Sunday. A Whatsapp message sent out by a social media group has been asking people to come out to protest on Sunday morning. Political parties have denied involvement and a number of them have called on their members not to participate in the protest on Sunday.
The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) is being accused of having it both ways – encouraging the protest but disclaiming involvement. “People are suffering in darkness, they don’t have gas, food. We have tolerated the government enough. It’s time to act therefore join us and take to the streets on April 3,” Leader of Opposition Sajith Premadasa reportedly posted on his Facebook page. The post triggered “harsh criticisms” against Mr. Premadasa and calls to political parties “to stay out of it.”
The UNP, whose leader Ranil Wickremesinghe attended the All Party Conference convened by President Rajapaksa, has indicated that it will not participate in the protest on Sunday. In a twitter statement, the UNP said “the United National Party will not be joining any protest organized by anonymous groups. We are committed to conducting our Sathyagraha Campaign around the country. The next Sathyagraha will be held at Matara on April 6, 2022 .”
The JVP has also “cautioned against protest campaigns that cannot be traced back to a recognizable and accountable organiser or group.” While acknowledging “the people’s right to organize their own protests against Sri Lanka’s worsening economic crisis,” the JVP has warned of “dangers lurking in a protest movement that has no accountability.”
Last week on this page, I referred to a statement by David Beasley, the executive director of the UN Word Food Programme (WFP), that the food situation in many countries today is worse than the 2011 crisis of rising food prices that triggered the Arab Spring uprisings in Egypt and across North Africa. I went on to comment that in Sri Lanka “no one can predict how the public mood will change and what it will precipitate if the current shortages and high prices continue to worsen and the government fails to provide relief to the people.”
Mirihana is now evidence as to what the public mood is. Howsoever it came to pass, the Mirihana protest summed up the mood of the people and their boiling anger at the government’s utter ineptitude and its heartless insensitivity. For the first time, public anger directly targeted the highest in the land. Once public anger is breached, it is hard to predict what course it will take. The perception of inaction by opposition parties is also opening up space for seemingly spontaneous protests to fill in.
Before Thursday night it seemed that India was ready to do some heavy lifting to protect the Rajapaksa presidency. Now, all of India’s lines of credit in cash and kind may not be enough to either prevent Humpty Dumpty from his great fall, or patching him up after the fall. But India has no permanent interest in Gotabaya Rajapaksa or any other Sri Lankan political leader, for that matter. If Gota is gone, as he is being asked to go, India will look for the next best bet among aspiring contenders. But is there any way that Gota can stay?
Protests and Options
One way would be to emulate what President Lyndon Johnson did when he stunningly announced at the end of a televised address on 31 March 1968: “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.” After becoming President in 1963, following Kennedy’s assassination, and his landslide victory in the 64 election, Johnson was hugely successful on the domestic front with truly historic achievements in civil rights, social welfare and social justice. But he was undone by the Vietnam war which started dividing America and destroying his presidency. Lyndon Johnson opted to take himself out of office and out of politics for the sake of the country.
Short of resignation, the best that the Sri Lankan President can do is to announce that he will not seek a second term but will use the remainder of his single term to work with all the political leaders and parties in parliament to make sure that Sri Lanka avoids mass starvation and that its derailed economy is put back on track. He should also commit to dissolving parliament at the earliest constitutional opportunity in March 2023. Beyond the current term, the President and the family should forget about any more extended terms in office. They should consider themselves lucky to get through with what they have now.
For the country, getting rid of Gotabaya Rajapaksa over the weekend is not going to solve the country’s foreign exchange crisis and its chronic shortages. Deposing the regime is not going to bring shiploads of food and fuel next week. As the constitution provides, if the President were to resign, the Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, will become the acting President until Parliament elects, by majority vote, an interim President from one of its MPs to serve out the remaining term of the resigning President. Let us not mention impeachment.
In a situation where Gotabaya Rajapaksa finds no alternative but to resign, Mahinda Rajapaksa cannot conceivably continue as acting President. He too will have to reign, and Parliament will have to find a way to elect some other MP as President, who will then appoint another MP as Prime Minister and still others as cabinet ministers. In the same breath, Parliament can pass a resolution calling for its dissolution, which the new acting/interim President will have to duly comply with.
All of this can happen and can be even fun if the country were in normal times. But it will not be fun for parliament to become theatre when people are running out of food and the country has already run out of fuel and electricity. On the other hand, allowing the incumbent President to continue, but on a tight leash from parliament, will avoid disrupting the pressing tasks of keeping essential supplies flowing to avoid mass starvation and endless dark nights. For this scenario, it cannot be business as usual for President Rajapaksa and for the rest of the Rajapaksa family.
The President will have to find a way to engage all the parties in parliament and forming a new cabinet focused on immediate relief measures and negotiations with the IMF. On Friday, Harsha de Silva posted an article entitled, “The Government cannot go on this way,” in which he draws attention to the collapse of public and investor confidence in the government and calls for “the complete overhaul of the monetary board of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL),” whose decisions are the main cause for the current crisis. The President has no option but to do this if he is to stay in office, and along with overhauling the monetary board, the President should also surround himself with a new team of advisors who will recommend Sri Lanka’s negotiating team for the IMF. It cannot include GL Pieris, Ali Sabri, Nivard Cabraal and S.R. Attygalle.
If the SJB or the JVP have other alternatives they should let the country know what they are. The SJB and the JVP have been flogging the dissolution horse for a while, but they do not have the votes in parliament to ride the poor animal home. Udaya Gamanpilla is now threatening that he and Weerawansa would be able to muster enough votes from both sides of the aisle to force an immediate election. Why would anyone from the opposition join these two discredited weathervanes who want a new election to get a new Finance Minister?
If parliament can muster a majority resolution to dissolve itself, so be it. But it would be ill-advised to do so in the current circumstances. It will leave the Executive President in total control until a new parliament returns. Worse, it will be a disruptive diversion from the more pressing tasks now – to scour for foreign exchange, streamline supplies, and restore electricity. Even if an election were to be held this year, it would still be a ‘hung parliament’ under the proportional representation system. How would it make it easier to get things done than it is now?
One would like to see the lifting of the curfew within five hours on Friday morning as a positive sign that no one in the government or the family is thinking Rathupaswala (August 1, 2013). There are legitimate fears that the government may use the current protests to clamp down militarily. But any clampdown will only worsen the situation of food shortages and foreign exchange crisis. The sanction-happy West will impose itself with vigour and will make the IMF inaccessible. All the currently assured cash and kind lines of credit from India will cease. China alone cannot feed all Sri Lankans, and it will likely not even try. There are better options.
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
