Connect with us

Features

Memorable moments during my years in Parliament

Published

on

(Excerpted from Memories of 33 year in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne)

I have had over 30 years service in Parliament, but I was not regarded as a public servant, because the Constitution exempts the Secretary General and his staff from being average public servants. In that sense I had a safeguard because I knew if I were to be removed from office, neither the President, nor the Prime Minister, could remove me because the Constitution safeguarded my position. It is only by a Resolution of Parliament that I could be removed from office, a privilege also given to the Elections Commissioner, Auditor General and a select few.

In my 30 years service there have been numerous instances where I’ve held opposing views to those of Members of Parliament (MPs). As far as the public were concerned, they had no opportunity to speak to me at all, except may be on the phone. I would always take a call. But with 225 MPs holding different political views and variations, there were many instances where I had to deal with them, but I have always prided myself as a person who doesn’t lose his temper.

Whenever an MP came to my room, the first thing I would do was to ask him or her to take a seat and then listen very carefully to their point of view and then I give my point of view which was more or less an official viewpoint either on matters relating to parliamentary procedures, the administration of the House, matters connected to the MP’s hostel or the administration of General’s House (MPs holiday home) in Nuwara-Eliya. The administration of these places came under us. One thing I learnt as a parliamentary officer is to expect the unexpected but there are events catching you by surprise even if you have been on the job for years.

Unexpected visitor of Christmas day

On Christmas day 1984 I was relaxing at home. Parliament was in recess after the year end Budget had concluded and there was a gap of two weeks or so for sittings to commence in the New Year. But my day of rest and relaxation turned out to be rather memorable when I had an unexpected visitor, none other than Industries Minister Cyril Mathew of the JRJ government. There were rumours of him falling from grace with the all-powerful executive President who was known to have with him the undated letters of resignation of all his MPs.

I was taken aback to see him, accompanied by a lawyer, at my door. He believed that President Jayewardene had sent his undated letter of resignation to Parliament and insisted that I give him a letter saying that he had requested me not to accept his letter of resignation if it was ever sent to me. I politely invited him in and asked him to have a piece of Christmas cake and to come to my office and we could discuss the matter the next day. He refused my request and said, “I am not leaving your house until you give me a letter saying you have accepted my letter asking you to disregard this letter of resignation.”

It was a holiday and there was no way for me to consult the Attorney General or anyone else for advice and he was refusing to leave the house, so I had to give a letter saying I acknowledge the letter that was given by him. Subsequently he was removed from his ministerial portfolio, and I had to allocate him a back bench seat in the Chamber. I felt uneasy to do this, but I had no choice.

Meal for an MP at 2 a.m.

One day I had a call from Sravasti, the MP’s Hostel which was also administered by Parliament, at 2 a.m. An MP had come at the time and was demanding dinner and they had rung me to ask what they should do. I told the staff to provide the MP with a meal that they could prepare at that time. A few days later the MP in question came to see me. He said that he had been served a meal prepared with canned fish and had been charged Rs. 75 which was the cost for the whole tin when all he had eaten was a piece or two. I had to politely tell him that if the can had been opened to prepare a meal for him, he would have to pay for the full tin. The MP left my room, though not very happy.

MP wanted his wife and son to stay with him at Sravasti

Similarly, an MP who was staying in the hostel one day approached me and told me that he wanted to have his wife and son staying with him at Sravasti. I explained to him that this was not possible as Sravasti was strictly for MPs only. ‘The MP insisted saying he was from the Central Province, and he needed a place in Colombo from where his son could go to school. However, I had to be firm and explain to him that the rules did not permit families to stay in the hostel.

Dr. Colvin agrees to disagree

There was another occasion when Dr Colvin R. de Silva came to my room and said “Seneviratne, I know you have advised the Speaker about a ruling that he has given but we disagree with it.” I can’t remember the actual incident, but then I explained to him that these are the conventions, the procedures, that we followed and we had studied the pros and cons very carefully, before advising the Speaker. He understood my point of view and ended the matter by saying, “Seneviratne, I don’t quite agree but the ruling has been given and we accept it.” That was the gentleman Dr. Colvin R de Silva was.

MPs who make irregular requests

Then there was a Tamil MP from Nuwara-Eliya who had gone to see President D.B.Wijetunga and wanted a telephone connection to an annex of a house which was five miles away from his residence. The President himself rang me and asked me to see if the connection could be given but I told him that as the place he wanted the new telephone connection was some distance away from his residence, they would need to install a new telephone line, and this is not permissible as the MP did not live there.

The rule is that if you’re living in a house and if you want the telephone there I could authorize it but in this case the request was to fix the phone five miles away from where he lived. The MP met me explaining that he had met President D.B. Wijetunga about the matter. I told him that I had explained to the President the regulation regarding this. He accepted it and I said I regretted I could not help him. Disappointed, he left my office.

Then there was one MP who came to me after he got to know I was buying six buses for the Parliament staff. He told me we should buy some of the buses from his company. I flatly refused. I explained to him that an expert committee of engineers conversant with buses was appointed by me and I would only act on their decision. I told him if I reported him to the Speaker that he is having such a transaction as an MP, he could lose his seat.

Similarly, there was a day when I stayed overnight in my room in parliament because of threats I received warning me not to come to parliament. Thinking there could me a move to prevent me from getting to Parliament the next morning which was a crucial day, and my presence was imperative for the functioning of the House, I remained in the building overnight.

Thankfully, one thing I never did during my years of service was lose my temper. At times you are made to feel that you are subservient to the MPs in the sense they are elected representatives. Once they come to Parliament they feel that they are all powerful and they can have their own way. So up to a point we try to accommodate them, but we cannot break the rules. I maintained this position throughout my tenure of Parliamentary service.

Mock session of the House

One of the most extraordinary scenes witnessed in the chamber of the old House of Representatives by the sea was the staging of a mock session of Parliament and the summoning of the Police on duty to remove a Member of the House. On April 6, 1955, Speaker Sir Albert Peiris suspended the sittings of the House and left the chamber ordering the sergeant-at-arms to have MP Somaweera Chandrasiri (Kesbewa) removed from the chamber.

At this stage, Dr. W Dahanayake (Galle) proposed that Mr. Edmund Samarakkody (Dehiowita) take the Chair. Mr. D.B.R. Gunawardane (Kotte) seconded the motion. Mr. Samarakkody then took the Chair and called upon Mr. Chandrasiri, who earlier had been suspended, to continue his speech. Mr. Chandrasiri started to speak. This mock session of parliament continued until the sergeant-at-arms entered the chamber accompanied by the police and removed Mr. Chandrasiri.

Arising from the motion of the Members, the Attorney General made an application to the Supreme Court under Section 25 of Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act that Mr. Dahanayake and Mr. Samarakkody be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished for offenses of breach of privileges of Parliament. The case was eventually heard before Justice H.N.G. Fernando who held: “Assuming an intention on the part of the respondents to be disgraceful, their conduct being included within the scope of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, cannot be questioned or impeached in proceedings taken in this court under Section 23 of the Act. The jurisdiction to take cognizance of such conduct was exclusively vested in the House of Representatives. The respondents are accordingly discharged from the notice served on them.”

Drama within the chamber

The Parliament Chamber has been the scene of many dramatic events as when steel-helmeted, baton-wielding policemen entered the chamber on the night of 12 February ,1959, on the orders of Mr. Speaker and physically carried out Dr. N.M. Perera, the Leader of the Opposition and 11 other Members of Parliament. This was one of the stormiest episodes in the history of the Ceylon Parliament. The removal of Dr. Perera and the other Members was the sequel to their defiance of the Speaker’s ruling that he accepted a closure motion on a debate on the Public Security (Amendment) Bill.

When Dr. N.M. Perera was to be removed, the other Members of the LSSP threw a cordon around him and tried to prevent the police from carrying Dr. Perera. After the Police had broken through the cordon and lifted Dr. Perera to be carried him, the LSSP Members clung on to him singing the Internationale, the left-wing anthem. While Dr. Perera was being carried, bedlam broke out in the galleries and they had to be promptly cleared.

Mr. Robert Gunawardene, after he was named, stood on his chair, and addressed the House. Later, he mounted the desk and continued to speak. At this stage, the Police entered the Chamber to remove Mr. Gunawardene. While he was being carried out, he shouted, “do not squeeze”, “do not squeeze” which prompted the Prime Minister, Mr. S.WR.D. Bandaranaike to say, “gently, gently.” That day, except for Mrs. Vivienne Goonawardene who, if I recall correctly, tied her sari pota firmly to her seat, every other Member of the LSSP was bodily removed from the Chamber.

Religious observances which were never associated with the work of Parliament once became the subject of a breach of privilege. Rev. Henpitagedera Gnanaseeha Thero, in the course of a sermon delivered after the alms-giving in memory of Mr. S.WR.D. Bandaranaike in the Parliament building on 26 September, 1962, said demons and evil spirits (yakkas, prethas and kumbandas) who had taken possession of some of our Parliamentarians have now left them in view of this dana and pinkama.

The next day, Mr. Dahanayake drew the attention of Speaker R.S. Pelpola to the sermon as reported in the “Ceylon Daily News”. He said that the sermon was a gross breach of privilege of the House and asked the Speaker to take suitable action. At the next meeting of the House held on November 6, Mr. Speaker read a letter he had received from the venerable monk expressing his regret and said that in view of the readiness with which the monk had expressed his sincere regret, it would suit the dignity of the House to accept the apology.

On 22 November, 1962, when Mr. K.M.P. Rajaratna (Welimada) defied the Chair and Mr. Speaker named him and asked him to leave the Chamber, he refused to comply. The speaker ordered the sergeant-at-arms to remove Mr. Rajaratna and suspended the sittings. The police were summoned into the chamber. For more than two hours, the guardians of the law grappled with the lawmakers who were out to prevent Mr. Rajaratna from being carried out. In this confusion, Mr. Lakshman Rajapaksa (Hambantota) removed the Mace from the Table and walked away. The Sergeant-at-Arms however took the Mace from Mr. Rajapaksa and placed it on the Table. Finally, when the police broke through the cordon and carried Mr. Rajaratna out of the House, the Members with the public in the galleries joining, began to sing, “He is a jolly good fellow”.

Some witty sayings of parliamentarians

Reretably, the witty sayings I have heard of and experienced in my tenure have been few, especially during my latter years. We hear several of these in the British House of Commons, many attributed to Winston Churchill. But I feel I should try and recollect a few for the future in our own land.

Immediately coming into mind is a sharp remark by Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake. He made a wisecrack on his close friend Maithripala Senanayake, Member of Medawachchiya. It was very well known at that time that he was courting a well known young Tamil lady journalist he later married. This lady had even visited my room in Parliament looking for Maithripala. Mr. Senanayake’s comment was as follows: “I appreciate the Member for Medawachchiya and his habits. He firmly believes in Sinhala only by day and the reasonable use of Tamil at night.” The House burst into spontaneous laughter.

Yet another I recall and believe is attributed to Edmund Samarakkody, Member for Ruwanwella. Being very perturbed at the conduct of fellow Members in the House he remarked in the chamber, “Hon. Speaker, I wish to say that half of this Assembly are idiots.” There was a big uproar and a Member stood up and complained to the Chair that he was insulting the Members of the august Assembly and deanded that he withdraw that statement. Mr. Samarakkody promptly got up and addressing the Chair said, “Hon. Speaker I withdraw that remark in deference to my colleagues. Half the Members of this Assembly are not idiots” Indeed a sharp and witty reply.

Another which comes to mind is the sharp comeback from my dear friend Sarath Muttetuwegama, Member for Kalawana. He was seated patiently in the chamber one day listening to Mr. Attanayake, Deputy Minister of Education at that time who continued to harangue Mr. Muttetuwegama saying “Hon. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kalawana, if he ever speaks in this chamber, only talks of Marx, Marx and Marx. Isn’t he capable of talking about someone else?” Sarath Muttetuwegama was soon on his feet saying, “Hon Speaker, I do not know for what reason the president gave him this portfolio of education. To the Hon. Member, Karl Marx, Groucho Marx, and the marks given by a teacher in the class all mean the same thing. So please sit down and be silent.” Sheepishly Mr. Attanayake sank in his seat amidst a lot of laughter amongst the Members.

There was much speculation and mischievous gossip about the relationship between the two UNP leaders of the time viz. Dudley Senananayake and J.R. Jayewardene and a possible split between them. Stanley Tilakaratne, short in stature was an inveterate heckler and he queried Dudley Senanayake about a possible split. Dudley Senanayake was on his feet and retorted sharply, “As for splits the Hon. Member for Kotte has an advantage over me he sees them at eye level.”

Bernard Aluvihare the erudite lawyer from Matale crossed over from the SLFP to join the UNP before the 1956 Elections which the SLFP won with a substantial majority. Pieter Keuneman known for his sharp wit commented: “Rats normally jump out of a sinking ship, but this is the first rat jumping into one.”



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Octopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves

Published

on

Open any business newspaper in Sri Lanka on any given weekend and the headlines read like a celebration. Bank A’s assets have crossed Rs. 3 trillion. Bank B has reached the Rs. 2 trillion asset milestone. Bank C has posted a profit after tax of Rs. 6 billion in the first quarter of 2026 alone. Bank E has reported a profit before tax of Rs. 2 billion. Bank E has cleared Rs. 1.5 billion in pre-tax profit. Bank F revealed a profit after tax of Rs. 4 billion. The numbers are staggering in a country where per capita income remains fragile, the economic crisis of 2022 has left deep scars, and some 300,000 small and medium entrepreneurs are reportedly at risk of losing the roofs over their heads, and their businesses.

So, the question must be asked, loudly and without apology: how do Sri Lankan banks manufacture such colossal profits, and who, precisely, is paying for them?

The arithmetic of extraction

The answer lies in a three-digit spread that most depositors and borrowers never see printed side by side. Sri Lanka’s Central Bank has held its Overnight Policy Rate (OPR) at 7.75%, the mid-point of a corridor bounded by a Standing Deposit Facility Rate of 7.25% and a Standing Lending Facility Rate of 8.25%; a policy spread of a mere 1%. This is the rate at which banks lend to and borrow from the Central Bank overnight. It is the peg around which monetary policy turns. What happens when that peg meets the market is another story altogether.

A depositor walking into a Sri Lankan bank today will be offered somewhere between 6% and 9% on a fixed deposit, the rate varying by tenure, bank, and whether you qualify as a “senior citizen.” Average savings account rates sit between 2% and 5%, while fixed deposits offer 6% to 10%. Yet, the same bank will charge that depositor’s neighbour, who runs a hardware shop, a garment workshop, or a small hotel, between 14% and 24% to borrow. Credit cards carry rates at the upper end or beyond that range. The arithmetic is unambiguous: an interest spread of 8 to 14 percentage points, engineered on top of a policy rate corridor of just 1%.

A key driver of lending interest rates is the lending-deposit interest spread, which captures the efficiency with which banks allocate society’s savings to its most productive uses. High lending rates and spreads pose a challenge for policymakers: they can affect monetary policy transmission, hinder private investment and job creation, inhibit financial development and inclusion, and can ultimately compromise financial stability.

Sri Lanka’s spreads fail every one of those tests.

An international comparison that should shame regulators

To understand the scale of this extraction, one need only look at comparable economies. In India, the Reserve Bank’s repo rate stands at 6.5%, and commercial bank lending rates to prime borrowers average around 9–11%, yielding a spread of roughly 3–4 percentage points. Thailand and Vietnam, both developing Asian economies with nominal policy rates in the 2–4% range — maintain bank lending-deposit spreads consistently below 5 percentage points. Many countries in East Asia had average spreads of 5% or less during the 2010–2017 period, including China, South Korea, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Nepal, whose financial system is frequently and condescendingly compared unfavourably to Sri Lanka’s, reported a bank lending rate of 7.66% in late 2025, a figure that would be considered a floor, not a ceiling, in Colombo. Bangladesh records a lending rate of under 8%. Even Pakistan, whose policy rate touched 22% during a period of acute macroeconomic crisis, has since brought it down sharply, and its spread has never structurally embedded itself at the levels Sri Lankan banks now consider normal.

Move to advanced economies and the contrast becomes almost surreal. Japan’s policy rate remains effectively at zero; bank lending rates for business borrowers sit between 1% and 2.5%. Australia’s Reserve Bank rate stands at 4.35%, with commercial lending to small businesses typically in the 6–8% range, a spread of 2–3 points at most. New Zealand, Canada, and the United States operate within similar parameters: policy-to-lending spreads that are measured in single digits and that tighten competitively as banking markets mature.

Sri Lanka’s banks, by contrast, operate as if competition does not exist, and as if SMEs have nowhere else to go. They are largely correct on both counts.

The three creatures: A taxonomy of bank behaviour

A financial analyst, speaking in a podcast that has circulated widely among the Sri Lankan business community, offered a metaphor that deserves wider currency. Sri Lankan banks, he argued, behave with a three-stage predatory logic.

First, they are the Octopus, embracing customers tightly, wrapping tentacles around every financial transaction, every salary account, every utility payment, every insurance product. The bank becomes indispensable. It is everywhere. Cross-selling, bundling, and lock-in are the tools of this phase. The small businessman who secures a loan quickly finds that his current account, his trade finance, his letter of credit, and his overdraft are all with the same institution. He is held, firmly, from all sides.

Then, once the embrace is complete, comes the Leech, the slow, persistent extraction of blood. The interest rate spread does its patient work over months and years. A loan taken at 18% for a business generating 12% returns is a slow death sentence, mathematically guaranteed. Fees compound on fees. Penal interest accrues on unpaid interest. The CRIB record, Sri Lanka’s Credit Information Bureau system, locks the borrower in place: miss a payment, and no other institution will touch you. The leech feeds undisturbed.

And then, when the blood runs dry, when the business can no longer service its debt and the collateral has been fully leveraged, comes the Snake. Sri Lanka’s Parate Execution Law, enacted under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act No. 4 of 1990, gives licensed commercial banks a power possessed by almost no other creditor class in any comparable jurisdiction: the right to seize and auction mortgaged property without any court order, without any judicial oversight, and without any independent valuation requirement.

Parate Execution is deeply ingrained in Sri Lanka’s legal system and has been a crucial tool for banks in recovering debts. The Cabinet-of-Ministers’ approval for a temporary suspension until December 2024 reflects a response to economic challenges, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. In 2023 alone, over 1,750 properties belonging to SMEs were auctioned under the law. These were not abstract balance sheet entries. They were factories, workshops, warehouses, family homes pledged as collateral, and the accumulated savings of a lifetime. Around 10 SME associations are collectively pushing for the continued suspension of parate executions, warning that nearly 300,000 entrepreneurs risk losing their assets if the law is enforced without reforms.

The snake, once it strikes, leaves nothing.

The Gates Prediction and the clever adaptation

Bill Gates, in his 1997 book ‘Business at the Speed of Thought’, famously observed that banking is necessary but banks are not, that the dinosaur institutions of the financial world would be swept aside once the Internet captured the transaction infrastructure that sustains them. A quarter of a century later, the banks are still here, and in Sri Lanka they are more profitable than ever. Gates underestimated the octopus’s adaptability.

Sri Lankan banks did not resist digital disruption; they absorbed it and charged for it. Sri Lankan banks have a genuine claim to technological pioneering. They were among the earliest institutions in the world to deploy automated teller machines and some have argued that the island served as a live testing ground for ATM technology before the technology was ready for larger markets.

Internet banking reduced their branch costs while preserving their pricing power. Mobile apps deepened the lock-in. The spread, the core engine of extraction, was never threatened by technology because technology cannot dissolve a regulatory monopoly or a CRIB record. The dinosaur learned to code.

What did not adapt was the relationship between bank profit and productive economic activity. In a functioning market, high bank profitability should signal efficient intermediation, savings being channelled productively into investment, employment, and growth. In Sri Lanka, it signals the opposite: a structural transfer of income from the productive economy, particularly from small businesses, to the financial statements of financial institutions that operate with insufficient competitive pressure, inadequate regulatory oversight of pricing, and a legal recovery toolkit that would be considered extraordinary in almost any other jurisdiction.

The SME crisis: When the host dies

The damage falls most heavily on small and medium enterprises, the sector that, in Sri Lanka as in every economy in the world, provides between 60% and 80% of all employment and generates the majority of entrepreneurial activity outside the formal corporate sector.

The International Monetary Fund has called for the reinstatement of parate execution, warning that prolonged suspension hinders banks’ ability to manage non-performing loans and price credit risks, potentially destabilizing the financial system. The IMF’s concern is legitimate in principle but perverse in practice. Non-performing loans in Sri Lanka’s banking system did not emerge from borrower profligacy. They emerged from a combination of historically high interest rates, a catastrophic economic crisis that was itself partly the product of fiscal and monetary mismanagement, and a forced-sale recovery mechanism that, when applied during a downturn, a double blow, destroys the very collateral value it claims to protect. When 1,750 properties are auctioned in a single year, supply floods a distressed market and prices collapse, damaging the bank’s recovery as much as the borrower’s livelihood.

What must change

The case for structural reform is not a case against banking or against profitable financial institutions. It is a case against a system that has substituted regulatory capture for competitive discipline, and legal coercion for constructive engagement.

Three reforms are overdue and increasingly urgent

.

First, the interest rate spread must be subject to transparent regulatory oversight. The Central Bank publishes the Average Weighted Prime Lending Rate and related statistics, but there is no binding ceiling on the spread between what banks pay depositors and what they charge borrowers for equivalent-risk instruments.

Second, the Parate Execution Law requires comprehensive reform, a genuine rewriting that introduces judicial oversight, mandatory independent valuation, and a structured mediation requirement before any forced sale can proceed.

Third, SME credit must be deliberately repriced. A development banking framework, should offer structured SME lending at regulated spreads, with the Central Bank providing concessional refinancing. Several peer economies have such mechanisms. Sri Lanka has the institutional capacity to build one; what it has lacked is the political will to confront the banking lobby that benefits from the current architecture.

The parasite and the host

There is an ecological principle that even the most effective parasite must learn: if it kills the host, it dies, too. Sri Lanka’s banking sector has not yet killed its host economy, but the symptoms of dangerous over-extraction are visible in every gazette notice of a parate auction, in every shuttered workshop in Pettah, in every garment factory whose owner defaulted not due to bad management but due to the mathematics of an 18% loan in a 12% return environment.

The banks will continue to announce their trillion-rupee asset milestones and their billion-rupee profits. The newspapers will continue to celebrate. And the octopus will continue its embrace, the leech its quiet work, and the snake will wait, patient, unhurried, for the moment to strike. Unless someone intervenes.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker,is a professor at SLIIT, Malabe. Views expressed in this article are personal.)

Continue Reading

Features

Winged guardians of Sri Lanka’s natural heritage: Featured birds highlight biodiversity richness ahead of World Biodiversity Day

Published

on

Crimison Fronted Barbet

As the world prepares to observe the International Day for Biological Diversity, commonly known as World Biodiversity Day, on May 22, Sri Lanka stands as a vivid example of how a relatively small island can hold an extraordinary concentration of life.

The annual observance serves as a global reminder of the importance of protecting ecosystems and the rich variety of life forms that sustain the planet.

This year’s observance comes amid increasing international concern over biodiversity loss driven by habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, invasive species and unsustainable development. Scientists warn that the disappearance of species affects not only wildlife but also food security, water resources, livelihoods and ecological stability.

For Sri Lanka, World Biodiversity Day carries particular significance.

Despite occupying less than 0.03 percent of the Earth’s land surface, Sri Lanka possesses remarkable ecological richness and has earned global recognition as one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots.

The island’s forests, wetlands, rivers, mountains and coastal ecosystems support an extraordinary range of species, many of which are found nowhere else on Earth.

Among the most visible and fascinating representatives of this natural wealth are birds — creatures that fill forests and gardens with colour and song while performing critical ecological functions. Birds pollinate flowers, disperse seeds, regulate insect populations and serve as important indicators of environmental health.

Conservation Biologist Rajika Gamage of the Tea Research Institute says birds often provide the earliest signals of environmental changes taking place within ecosystems.

“Birds are among the most important indicators of habitat quality. Changes in bird populations can reveal ecological disturbances long before they become visible to people,” Gamage said.

Black bird

As Sri Lanka reflects on biodiversity conservation, five remarkable bird species — the Yellow-fronted Barbet, Crimson-fronted Barbet, Sri Lanka Hanging Parrot, Tawny-bellied Babbler and Blackbird — illustrate not only the beauty of the country’s avian diversity but also the interconnected nature of ecosystems.

Sri Lanka’s biological richness is exceptional by global standards. The island contains a high percentage of endemic species among amphibians, reptiles, freshwater fish, mammals and birds. The country’s geographical isolation, varied elevations and diverse climatic conditions have shaped unique evolutionary pathways over millions of years.

Its wet zone rainforests, dry zone forests, montane cloud forests, grasslands and agricultural landscapes collectively create a mosaic of habitats capable of supporting diverse life forms.

Gamage notes that biodiversity conservation extends far beyond protected areas.

“People often think biodiversity exists only inside national parks and forests. But biodiversity is supported through connected landscapes that include home gardens, agricultural lands, tea plantations, wetlands and village ecosystems,” he explained.

Research in plantation landscapes has demonstrated that tea-growing regions with habitat diversity and natural vegetation can support substantial bird populations, including endemic and ecologically important species.

Among the featured birds, the Yellow-fronted Barbet stands as one of Sri Lanka’s most recognisable endemic species.

The bird, with its bright green plumage, yellow forehead and blue facial markings, often remains hidden among dense foliage despite its loud repetitive calls echoing through gardens and forests.

Sri Lanka Hanging Parakeet

While many people hear its calls every day, few realise its importance within ecosystems.

The species feeds heavily on fruits and berries, becoming an important seed disperser. Seeds consumed by the bird are transported and deposited elsewhere, helping natural forest regeneration.

“Many birds function as ecological engineers without people realising it,” Gamage said. “Seed-dispersing species contribute directly to maintaining forest diversity.”

Equally colourful is the Crimson-fronted Barbet.

Distinguished by its vivid crimson forehead against green plumage, this endemic bird inhabits forests and tree-rich landscapes within wetter parts of Sri Lanka.

Like the Yellow-fronted Barbet, it performs a critical ecological function through seed dispersal.

The species often serves as an indicator of healthy vegetation and suitable habitat structure. Its ability to survive in modified landscapes with sufficient tree cover also demonstrates the importance of preserving green corridors beyond forests.

Another unique representative of Sri Lanka’s avian heritage is the Sri Lanka Hanging Parrot.

Tawny Bellied Babbler

Small, energetic and brightly coloured, the bird is famous for its unusual habit of sleeping upside down while hanging from branches.

Its striking appearance makes it popular among birdwatchers, but its ecological significance extends beyond aesthetics.

Feeding on fruits, flowers and nectar, the Hanging Parrot acts both as a pollinator and seed disperser.

As it travels among plants and trees, it assists natural reproductive processes essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems.

“Pollination and seed dispersal are among the foundations upon which ecosystems function,” Gamage explained.

Less conspicuous but equally valuable is the Tawny-bellied Babbler.

Often moving quietly through shrubs and undergrowth in pairs or small groups, the species spends much of its time searching for insects and other small invertebrates.

Unlike fruit-eating birds, the Tawny-bellied Babbler contributes to ecological balance through natural pest control.

Its feeding behaviour helps regulate insect populations, particularly within agricultural landscapes.

Birds that naturally reduce insect numbers provide ecological services that may reduce reliance on chemical pest-control methods.

The Sri Lanka Blackbird occupies yet another important ecological niche.

Found mainly in montane forests and cooler highland environments, the species reflects environmental conditions within sensitive mountain ecosystems.

Scientists often monitor highland bird populations because changes in their distribution or numbers can indicate broader environmental changes, including habitat degradation and climate impacts.

As World Biodiversity Day approaches, experts stress that conservation challenges continue to grow.

Habitat fragmentation, pollution, deforestation and climate-related pressures increasingly threaten ecosystems around the world, including Sri Lanka.

Yet conservationists emphasise that solutions frequently begin at local levels.

Protecting trees in home gardens, restoring degraded habitats, conserving wetlands and promoting biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices can all contribute significantly to preserving ecological balance.

Gamage believes that public understanding remains central to future conservation efforts.

“People should understand that biodiversity is not separate from human life. Clean water, fertile soils, pollination, climate regulation and ecological stability all depend upon biodiversity,” he said.

The songs of Sri Lanka’s birds may appear ordinary to casual listeners, but behind those sounds lies a story millions of years in the making.

The call of a Yellow-fronted Barbet from a village garden, the bright flash of a Hanging Parrot moving across a forest edge, the quiet movements of a Tawny-bellied Babbler beneath dense vegetation, or the presence of a Blackbird in cool mountain forests are all reminders of the extraordinary natural heritage the island possesses.

As Sri Lanka marks World Biodiversity Day alongside the global community, these winged ambassadors become more than beautiful wildlife species.

They represent the fragile yet complex web of life that sustains ecosystems — and ultimately sustains humanity itself.

Yellow Fronted Barbet

 

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

The Time has come to move forward

Published

on

President Dissanayake / Minister Rathnayake / Minister Nanayakkara

Time, it is said, is the great healer. But there are some wounds that will not heal with time. They need specific and focused treatment. The dates May 18 and 19, the two final days of Sri Lanka’s three decade long war, are less in the consciousness of the people than before. But the continuation of the untreated and unhealed wounds of the war continues to be seen in the many groups of people who gather to remember their loved ones on these days. In Colombo, a group of victim families and committed activists from different communities gathered at Wellawatte beach and lit lamps. These gatherings are also a political statement that the wounds of the war remain untreated and unhealed.

One of the key features of May 18 and 19 has been the polarised positions taken by Tamil and Sinhalese groups. Tamil groups mourn those who perished in the war, especially in the last battles, on May 18 while many Sinhalese commemorate the military victory on May 19. Since 2015 there has been a diminishing of tensions due to the more nuanced way successive governments have marked the end of the war. This was especially the case during the governments led by Ranil Wickremesinghe and is now also true of the government headed by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

The present government has done much to mitigate the sense of polarisation between the state and the ethnic and religious minorities. The government’s insistence that it will treat all citizens equally and not support extremism in any form is appreciated by minorities who have often felt marginalised and viewed with suspicion in the past. But the government cannot afford to rest on its laurels merely because it is better than previous governments. It needs to take specific and focused action to heal the wounds of the past. Symbolic gestures and inclusive rhetoric are important, but they are not enough in themselves to deal with the consequences of a protracted ethnic conflict.

The unresolved issues are well known. They surface repeatedly in the resolutions on Sri Lanka passed at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In 2015 Sri Lanka co-sponsored UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 which called for reconciliation, accountability and constitutional reform including power sharing arrangements. This resolution and the ones that preceded it emerged from the demands of war affected communities and found resonance within the international human rights community. They include the issues of missing persons, disappeared persons, political prisoners, military occupation of civilian lands and accountability for alleged wartime abuses.

Most Capable

Under the NPP government, Tamil people have felt they can attend events commemorating those who died in the war in large numbers. This is evidence that the country is changing in the direction of reconciliation. State institutions too have cooperated in this process in creating a conducive climate for memorialisation. But despite the passage of 17 years since the end of the war, the emblematic issues remain unresolved although the government appears sincere in its desire to resolve them. Indeed, the government has deployed some of its most capable leaders to deal with these challenges.

President Dissanayake himself has taken on the task of reshaping public consciousness through speeches that emphasise unity rather than division. Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara has responsibility for institutions dealing with missing persons, reparations and reconciliation. Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake has been entrusted with accelerating economic development in the north. Economic development is essential. The north and east require investment, jobs, infrastructure and opportunities for young people. Poverty and unemployment affect all communities and development can reduce feelings of exclusion. But economic development alone cannot resolve the deeper roots of ethnic conflict.

Protracted ethnic conflicts are rarely caused only by economic grievances. They are also about identity, dignity, historical memory and political power. This is where many governments in Sri Lanka have failed. They have believed that rapid development, highways, buildings and investment would be sufficient to overcome decades of mistrust. But communities that feel politically marginalized do not simply abandon their aspirations because roads are built or markets expand. Human beings seek recognition of who they are and a meaningful share in the decisions that govern their lives. Language is particularly important. In Tamil majority districts, the government secretariats continue to be staffed by those who are only Sinhala-speaking. This is a constant reminder to Tamil speakers that they are not equal to Sinhalese in their dealings with the state.

Academic research on divided societies has shown that constitutional arrangements can either exacerbate conflict or reduce it. Countries such as Belgium and Northern Ireland provide examples where systems of power sharing have enabled communities with different identities to coexist peacefully within a common state. In Northern Ireland, peace became sustainable only when political institutions ensured that both communities had a guaranteed role in governance rather than leaving one side permanently subordinate to the other. Sri Lanka’s own efforts at political reform have focused largely on territorial power sharing through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the provincial council system.

More Belonging

The fact that the government leadership is now saying that provincial council elections will be held this year is therefore a positive development. It would restore democratic participation at the provincial level after years of delay and neglect. However, reforms need to go further. Provincial councils have remained weak institutions with inadequate powers and finances. Successive governments have hesitated to fully implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment, especially regarding land and police powers. These laws, including the language law, need to be fully implemented. The reluctance or incapacity of successive governments to do so, including the present one, has reinforced minority perceptions that promises of devolution are made but never sincerely implemented.

A new national narrative for Sri Lanka must therefore go beyond non racism and economic development. True reconciliation requires accepting diversity not as a threat but as the foundation of a united and peaceful country. Power sharing should not be viewed as a concession extracted under pressure. It should be understood as a democratic necessity in a plural society. The purpose of power sharing and giving equal rights to Tamil language speakers is not division but inclusion. It gives all communities a stake in the state and reduces the fear that political power will permanently remain in the hands of one community alone.

Sri Lanka has had leaders in the past who understood this reality. Prime Minister S W R D Bandaranaike attempted to reach a political settlement through the Bandaranaike Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957. Today the political context offers another opportunity. The nationalist forces that dominated politics for many years have lost credibility due to their association with corruption, economic collapse and political mismanagement. But where they did the right thing they are remembered positively as the late State Minister of Plantation Industries and Mahaweli Development in Sri Lanka Lohan Ratwatte still is in Batticaloa for having heeded the Tamil cattle farmers and appointing a Tamil officer to deal with their problems. The government has a two thirds majority in Parliament and enjoys significant public goodwill. This creates space for courageous leadership.

The time has therefore come for the government, opposition and minority political parties to put aside their bitter political feuds and engage with each other sincerely to arrive at a consensual political solution embedded within the Constitution. Sri Lanka has tried military victory, centralized rule and development centred approaches. None by themselves have resolved the ethnic conflict. The lesson of the past is that non racism and economic development are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Lasting peace in Sri Lanka requires power sharing, trust building and a political settlement that gives every community a sense of belonging to a country they all feel is home.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Trending