Features
Oddity of the National List – Twins in a Single Body: A Commentary
by Lokubanda Tillakaratne
Fforthcoming General Election allows us to revisit the state of the 29 individuals commonly known as the National List—apportion members under Article 99 of the Constitution—to join the 196 elected members in parliament as stipulated in Article 98(1). This List is akin to a shadow bicameral legislature with a moiety of members who have no accountability to the voting electors, the people, because they never had to promise anything to the voters and never received a vote explicitly intended for them.
After the September 21st awakening, citizens are yearning to vote again in the General Election to do something to repeal these unpopular, confusing, and least helpful parts in the Constitution that had soured the meaning of governing and supremacy of consent of the governed.
As stipulated in Article 93, voting for Members of Parliament (MPs) is a ‘free’ and ‘equal’ process with secret ballots of the people. In practice, that only applies to the 196 members of the 225-member body in parliament. The voters do not have any direct means to express their preference on the balance of 29 members. That preference is the unfettered prerogative of the party hierarchy, which proposes the names to be considered as potential MPs! The qualification to be nominated into the parliament under this List category is allegiance to and friendship with the party leaders. The Constitution had sidelined the consent of the people in this instance.
After the vote counts at the forthcoming General Election for the 196 representatives, the Commissioner of Elections will announce the 29 representatives selected as per Article 99A to complete the 225-members.
For the upcoming election, the Commissioner of Elections has already proposed and published nominees for this list from each party. However, the Constitution has not offered a mechanism for the electors to vote for the List members. Instead, it allows votes cast by the electors earlier in the day for the 196 to be dusted off and recycled by way of a calculation to apportion 29 names that will become the National List.
On the election night, meanwhile, potential members of this List will revel with the party leaders and bigwigs in Colombo watching the vote count, not for them but for electors who will earn the Just Powers from the masses for governing. They are partying and waiting for the cast votes to be re-used to make the List. The List hopefuls mingle in the cream of the party spending political equity hoping for a place in the 29 group. These individuals probably never left the boundary of their cozy homes to put up a poster on a street corner or hang a string of bunting across main street begging for votes for them. Such low-rung jobs are the burden of the commoners, the 196, not the ones chosen in party headquarters.
An elector can call this a second-tier group of names that gets the same powers as the 196 to govern. But the List members have diffused responsibilities, and some even get ministerial portfolios soon after taking the oath of office. So, without ever having promised anything to the people, this group gets a free ride to the Diyavanna Oya people’s house to benefit from the heavenly perks for five years without ever declaring their position on any issue affecting the lives of the electors. Sweet pensions await them at the end of the term.
Some members of this List have been MPs in parliament through this process since 1994, a full generation and more, without ever receiving a single vote, and some names have been nominated for consecutive terms by diverse parties. Some are past 90 years of age and still seek to gain entrance through the current list published a few weeks ago. This makes this hardly democracy, but a List for a form of old-fashioned gerontocracy.
The recent thundering response from the electorate yearning for youth opens the gates to look seriously at this unusual system of supposed ‘representation’ of people by a motley group of individuals.
Article 99A of the Constitution defining this 29-member List as ‘elected’ is a misnomer. This is only a group primarily known to the party leadership which does the nomination. From the composition and past and present conduct of the List members, it appears those who do the nomination lack discernment and concern for the people and the electoral process.
Recently concluded parliamentary nomination shows what’s wrong with this process. Apportion of 29 individuals as representatives cannot be considered even a Referendum as it is silent in Articles relating to the process of election of President and Representatives. Few individuals who failed badly in the recently held presidential election now appear in the proposed National List for the honour of governing as an MP. A group of men and women, some unknown to many, shall be rammed upon us through a different list as per the Constitution. This List receives legitimacy as MPs only after using votes we cast to elect the other group, the 196 MPs. The well-known secret is that the 29-member group, which could not convince electors to vote for it or would not be likely to win an election, gets the privilege now to govern the electors, We the People.
Article 99 is a vehicle for favouritism and nepotism. The List seems to carry strands of DNA showing connectivity to diverse lines of political ancestry going back to early 1900s. Some have failed or are tired of their other interests or think inclusion in the List might enhance their opportunities for new pursuits. The consensus among the electors is that this List has become a landing spot for spouses, sons, and daughters of sitting or former politicians, retirees, and financial backers of the party to govern without an electoral consent. Others are close followers of the political echelon, and some are in occupations with nothing to do with governing.
After every election cycle, the new List is headed for perks like free housing in Colombo, V8-class behemoths, or luxury sedans with windows with tinted glass, all at the expense of the people. While holding office, when they get out of the car, they walk with the ostentation of a peacock. When they lose, they hide the car in a friend’s garage and disappear like Hippos out of water. To evict them from the government issued house in Colombo, the only way is to smoke them out like we do with a bee-hive.
These perks are only dreams for a teacher with 20 years of service in the Wellaragama school of 180 students in Galenbindunuwewa Education Zone. He must beg for a loan to build his home. With the first installment cheque, before starting on the foundation, he must erect the electrified elephant fence around the house plot.
Giving the powers and privileges of 196 to the 29 moiety of membership too in the parliament is a half-cooked process. Only one group goes through the rigours of the competitive electoral process while the other group, the chosen ones, gets its pass to parliament on a silver platter without shedding a drop of sweat. They come to represent people as an all-Island team without any mandate, consent of the people, or electoral district boundary which is mandated for the 196. Theirs is a shore-to-shore boundary. Although the National List is constitutional, this manifestly odd practice on the fringes and below surface democracy has been a source of dissatisfaction and discussion among the people. It is a broken moment in Sri Lanka’s democratic process we hold dear.
While the elected 196 representatives have earned the honour by going from door to door in the district, the List members have never come before the people asking for votes. They never get off stage. After failing in previous elections, some had a minimal chance of succeeding at another election to be elevated to the real ranks of the elected. The electors will not get an opportunity to hear from the List collectively or individually to know what their policy proposals for a particular electoral district are. The List members sit in the august chamber anyway, with the blessings of genealogical magic and the know-how of the party hierarchy.
The right to govern is a privilege earned by the representatives through votes of the governed. While the 196 passes this test, from the way the 29 group was nominated, it shows it is exempted from that test. The former earns the honour after campaigning at a granular level, while the latter, the handpicked colleagues of the party stratosphere, are handed the keys to the parliament at the party office in Colombo.
Political leadership has learned ways to circumvent the original intent of Article 99A. The process of the 29 is sullied, often wiled, and wandered off from the universal democratic maxim best described in the classic document of democracy, the American Declaration of Independence – governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. For the 99A, consent of the party hierarchy is what matters.
With the mandate of this Article, acutely contrary to the Just Powers maxim, the framers of the Constitution have left us with a problem. The National List supposedly was intended to safeguard the underrepresented groups and to augment the experience and expertise capital in the legislative chamber of the elected members. It was an attempt to uphold fairness to the people and encourage pluralistic themes society needs. With a formula prescribed for the tumultuous times we experienced in the early 1980s behind us, I believe time has come to open the conversation about the pros and cons of the National List model.
The past 15 years have shown Sri Lanka has moved past those treacherous times of the 80s. The country enjoys a precious state of ethnic harmony, understanding, and respect for each other, a marked distinction from the encumbrances that plagued us in the past.
Although the intent of the drafters of the Constitution had been sincere and timely, every class of previous Lists sitting in the parliament consisted of few individuals with questionable competency or potential for ability to govern. What part of national and public interest they represent is muddied, to say the least.
Furthermore, the List took its own evolutionary path, not envisioned or expected by the framers, and now appears outdated and unnecessary.
Thus, the twin or binary confusion of the moieties in the parliament chamber begs the question: If experience and expertise were prerequisites for the job of being an MP in the National List category, why not seek the same from the elected, the 196, as well? Or, since such a prerequisite is not required from the elected 196, why not ask the 29 group to enter the electoral process as well, representing assigned districts, and join as conventional MPs?
On the other hand, if the National List of 29 is so indispensable for the interests of the country as much as 196, why bother to mortgage the country to hold the elections to bring in the latter? Instead, why not commission the party leadership to nominate all 225? A few typed sheets of names will do the job. Money saved by this change will allow the Treasury to buy the basic needs of the people. Remember the Panadol days?
In a peculiar way, this governing model reminds me of the allegory in the story of the extraordinary twins in Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894). The twins, Italian counts Angelo and Luigi, immigrated to Dawson’s Landing, a frontier town on the banks of Mississippi River. They are conjoined at neck down, have two talking heads, four arms, one body, and two legs. The two heads can think differently and talk things simultaneously; four arms can move whichever way a head prefers, but two legs make the twins walk as one. The two heads have mutually agreed that every Sunday at 12 midnight ownership of the legs changed from one twin to the other. When one gets sick, even if the other’s head is healthy, the whole system breaks down and both heads feel the pain. Then the citizens in Dawson’s Landing call the only practicing physician in town, Dr. Claypool, who is yet to pass the licensing exam.
It is reassuring that since our electoral process has 70 years of experience, voters in Sri Lanka will do without Dr. Claypool’s medical Rx consisting of ingredients like a grain of gold, a bone of the stag’s heart, shavings of ivory, dates, roses, and scores of other items prescribed to ailing twins to correct the conjoined twin syndrome the Constitution has overwhelmed us with. Instead, voters will get the opportunity to heal the 29-class disorder at this forthcoming election. They can vote to stop the backdoor culture of governing and do something to remove the National List misnomer from the Constitution.
This time around, voters must think of our shadow bicameral system of governing while waiting in line to vote. They are at the doorstep of correcting this oddity by voting in a two-thirds majority for a political party of their choice.
Twins’ Story Update
: After Luigi was elected for Dawson’s Landing City Council, he was not allowed to attend 6-member executive council meetings open only to elected members. Council member Luigi was not allowed to sit in the Council chamber because Angelo was not eligible to sit as he was not an elected member. Without Luigi in the council meetings, there was no quorum, law making came to a standstill, and the town was paralyzed. It tried every loophole to make it possible for the twins to sit at the table but found no legal way to do it.
So, they hanged Luigi.
Features
Putting people back into ‘development’ – a challenge for South
Should Sri Lanka consider an 18th IMF programme? Some academicians exploring Sri Lanka’s development prospects in depth are raising this issue. It is yet to emerge as a hot topic among policy and decision-making circles in this country but common sense would sooner rather than later dictate that it be taken up for discussion by the wider public and a decision arrived at.
The issue of an 18th IMF programme was raised with some urgency locally by none other than Dr. Ganeshan Wignaraja,Visiting Senior Fellow, ODI Global London, one of whose presentations, made at the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, was highlighted in this column last week, May 7th. An IMF programme is far from the ideal way out for a bankrupt country such as Sri Lanka but a policy of economic pragmatism would indicate that there is no other way out for Sri Lanka. Such a programme is the proverbial ‘Bird in the hand’ for Sri Lanka and it may be compelled to avail of it to get itself out of the morass of economic failures it is bogged down in currently.
While local economic growth possibilities are far from encouraging at present, such prospects globally are far from bright as well. Some of the more thought-provoking data in the latter regard were disclosed by Dr. Wignaraja. For example, ‘The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook projects global growth slowing to 3.1 percent in 2026; with downside risks dominating: prolonged conflict, geopolitical fragmentation, renewed trade tensions, bearing down hardest on emergent and developing economies.’
However, as is known, an ‘IMF bailout’ is fraught with huge risks for the people of a developing country. ‘The Silver Bullet’ brings hardships for the people usually and they would be required by their governments to increasingly ‘tighten their belts’ and brace for perhaps indefinite material hardships and discontent. For Sri Lanka, the cost of living is unsettlingly high and 20 percent of the population is languishing below the poverty line of $ 3.65 per day.
These statistics should help put the spotlight on the people of a country, who are theoretically the subjects and beneficiaries of development, and one of the main reasons, in so far as democracies are concerned, for the existence of governments. Placing people at the centre of the development process is urgently needed in the global South and shifting the focus to other considerations would be tantamount to governments dabbling in misplaced priorities.
Technocrats are needed for the propelling of economic growth but a Southern country’s main approach to development cannot be entirely technocratic in nature. The well being of the people and how it is affected by such growth strategies need to be prime focuses in discussions on development. Accordingly, discourses on how poverty alleviation could be facilitated need urgent initiation and perpetuation. There is no getting away from people’s empowerment.
In the South over the decades, the above themes have been, more or less, allowed to lapse in discussions on development. With economic liberalization and ‘market economics’ being allowed to eclipse development, correctly understood, people’s well being could be said to have been downplayed by Southern governments.
The development issues of Southern publics could be also said to have been compounded over the years as a result of the hemisphere lacking a single and effective ‘voice’ that could consistently and forcefully take up its questions with the global powers and institutions that matter. That is, the South lacks an all-embracing, umbrella organization that could bring together and muster the collective will of the South and work towards the realization of its best interests.
This columnist has time and again brought up the need for concerned Southern sections to explore the potential within the now virtually moribund Non-Aligned Movement to reactivate itself and fill the above lacuna in the South’s organizational and mobilization capability. In its heyday NAM not only possessed this institutional capability but had ample ‘voice power’ in the form of its founding fathers, with Jawaharlal Nehru of India, for example, proving a power to reckon with in this regard. The lack of such leaders at present needs to be factored in as well as accounting for the South’s lack of power and presence in the deliberative forums of the world that have a bearing on the hemisphere’s well being.
The Executive Director of the RCSS, Ambassador (Retd) Ravinatha Aryasinha, articulated some interesting thoughts on the above and related questions at a forum a couple of months back. Speaking at the launching of the book authored by Prof. Gamini Keerewella titled, ‘Reimagining International Relations from a Global South Perspective’, at the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Colombo, Amb. Aryasinha said, among other things: ‘Historically, there is a precedent that has been realized by the Non-Aligned group of countries – unfortunately, rather than being reformed and modified at the end of the Cold War, it has been tossed away.’
The inability of the nominally existent NAM to come out of its state of veritable paralysis and voice and act in the name of the South in the current international crises lends credence to the view that the organization has allowed itself to be ‘tossed away.’ The challenge before NAM is to prove that it is by no means a spent force.
As indicted, NAM needs vibrant voices that could advocate value-based advancement for the global South. Moral principles need to triumph over Realpolitik. Such transformative changes could come to pass if there is a fresh meeting of enlightened minds within the South. Pakistan by offering to mediate in the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran, for instance, proved that there are still states within the South that could look beyond narrow self-interest and work towards some collective goals. Hopefully, Pakistan’s example will be emulated.
Along with Pakistan some Gulf states have shown willingness to work towards a de-escalation of the present hostilities in West Asia. This could be a beginning for the undertaking of more ambitious, collective projects by the South that have as their goals political solutions to current international crises. These developments prove that the South is not bereft of visionary thinking that could lay the basis for a measure of world peace. That is, there are grounds to be hopeful.
NAM needs to see it as its responsibility to make good use of these hopeful signs to bring the South together once again and work towards the realization of its founding principles, such as initiating value-based international politics and laying the basis for the collective economic betterment of Southern people.
Features
Artificial Intelligence in Academia: Menace or Tool?
(The author is on X as @sasmester)
I have often been told by university colleagues how soulless and dangerous ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is to academia and humanity. They lament that students no longer read anything as they can now get various AI programmes to summarise what is recommended which is mostly in the English language to Sinhala or Tamil or get easier versions in English itself. They get their assignments and even dissertations fully or partially written by AI. And I am led to believe that universities do not have reliable detection software to assess plagiarism and academic fraud that have been committed using AI beyond the software freely available on the internet with their own limitations. This is due to financial restrictions in these institutions. Even these common malpractices have been done mostly with the aid of free AI programmes which are readily available, which means cheating in this sense is free and mostly safe. For teachers, this is a ‘menace’ in the same way ‘copying’ once was. But its implications are far worse.
But given the global investments made over AI, it cannot be wished away despite the enormous negative impact its use has on the environment, particularly due to its massive demand for energy. So, AI is with us to stay, and it has a considerable role to play in human civilisation even though like most innovations and inventions, this too carries its own burden of negativity. In this context, instead of demonising AI and lamenting its replacement of human agency and ingenuity, one needs to think seriously about how to deal with and engage with it reflectively and pragmatically as there is much it can offer if people are intelligent enough to make rational and sensible choices.
When I am making these observations, I am restricting myself to a handful of practices involving only writing both in university-based examination processes and in the fields of creative writing.
My initial introduction to AI was through the Research Methods class I used to teach in New Delhi. In 2022, this class was supposed to go to Dharmshala in Uttar Pradesh for fieldwork training, and we needed to write a funding proposal quickly. One of the students in the class, already familiar with ChatGPT introduced by OpenAI as a free programme in 2022, did the proposal with its help before the two-hour class was over. I edited it soon after and sent it off to the university administration for funding which we received. That stint of field work was completed in five days and was the most detailed work undertaken as a training programme up to that time in the university which had considerable output ranging from a documentary film to a detailed ethnography based on the findings.
While the technical details, the format of the proposal and its basic writing were done by AI due to the time constraints the class faced, its fine-tuning was done by me and a few students. AI could not then and even now cannot undertake that level of specificity without close human intervention. But the film, the ethnography and the actual process of research had nothing to do with AI. It was the result of human labour, thinking, planning and at times creativity and ingenuity. This was an early example of how AI could coexist in an academic environment if its technical usefulness was clearly understood and potential for excesses was also understood. But this was a time, easily accessible AI was just emerging, and we did not know much about it. But I was fortunate enough to have intelligent students in my class who gave me a crash course into this kind of AI use, which I followed up with my own reading and experimentation later on. As a result, I am keener now to see how it can be used for the betterment of academic practice rather than taking an uncritically demonising position, which I know will not lead anywhere.
But how is this possible? The lamentations of my colleagues about the abuse of AI in academic practice is not unfounded. It is a serious threat that remains mostly unaddressed not only in our country but almost everywhere else in the world too. This is mostly because the advancements of AI even in day-to-day free usage have far exceeded any thoughts for actionable codes of ethics to ensure its practice is sensible and ethical. At the same time, I cannot see why a student should not use AI to correct his spelling and grammar in assignments. I also cannot see why a student cannot seek AI’s help to secure research material from secondary sources available online which I have been doing for years. For instance, the originals of specific books and rare manuscripts might not be available in any repositories in our part of the world. In such situations, what AI might find us is all we have access to in a world where we are restricted in our mobility due to semi-racist visa regimes of failed empires and former superpowers as well as our own lack of ability to travel due to our own unenviable economic conditions. But unfortunately, the materials we need are often only available in research centers and libraries in those nations.
Similarly, when it comes to academic prose, it makes no sense now to take years to translate works from multiple languages to Sinhala and Tamil. This has always been a time-consuming, cumbersome and expensive process. Non-availability of Sinhala and English translations of core originals in languages such as English, French, German and so on has been a long-term problem for our country. But this can now be done well – at least from English to our languages – quite quickly and with a very low margin for error by using specific AI programmes which are meant to do precisely this. What this means is a quick expansion of knowledge in local languages which would have ordinarily taken years to achieve or might not have been possible at all. But still, this needs significant human intervention and time towards perfection. However, I do not think AI-based translations work as well for fiction and poetry or creative works more generally. But the ability for AI to emulate nuance and feeling in language is fast emerging. These are two clear examples of improving technical abilities in research and writing in which AI can be of help.
But looking for sources of information with help the help of AI or using it as a tool to undertake essential translations from one language to another is quite different from simply using it without ascertaining the accuracy of collected information, getting AI to do all your work without any reflection or without any hard work at all, including engaging AI to do the final product in a writing assignment — be that a term paper or a work of fiction. If one proceeds in this direction, as many unfortunately do nowadays, then, our ability to think and be creative as a species will become diminished over time and our sense of humanity itself will take a toll. This is what my colleagues worry about when they say AI is making younger generations soulless.
It is here that ethical practices on how to use AI responsibly without compromising our sense of humanity must play a central role. But these ethical practices must be formally written and taught, followed by viable programmes for detection and publication if unethical practices are followed. This needs to be the case particularly in teaching institutions as well as the broader domain of creative writing. After all, what is the fun in reading a novel or a collection of poetry written by AI?
It is time people began to think about what AI can do in their own fields without falling prey to its power and their own laziness. This brings to my mind Geoffrey Hinton’s words: “There is no chance of stopping AI’s development. But we need to ensure alignment; to ensure it is beneficial to us …” Similarly, as Yann LeCun observed, “AI is not just about replicating human intelligence; it’s about creating intelligent systems that can surpass human limitations.” In this sense, it is up to us to find our edge in creativity and common sense to find the most sensible way forward in using AI.
Features
Engelbert’s 90th birthday bash
The legendary Engelbert Humperdinck, who is known for his hit songs such as ‘A Man Without Love’, ‘Release Me’, ‘Spanish Eyes’, ‘The Last Waltz’, ‘Am I That Easy To Forget’, ‘Ten Guitars’ and ‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’, turned 90 on 02 May, 2026, and there were some lovely Hollywood-related celebrations.
Before his birthday, Engelbert’s new single ‘I’ve Got You’ was released – on 23 April – and Engelbert had this to say: “‘I’ve Got You’ is especially close to my heart. It speaks to love, loyalty, and the quiet strength we find in one another”.
The main birthday event was held at The Starlight Cabaret, in Los Angeles, California, and Sri Lankan Raju Rasiah, now based in the States, and his wife Renuka, who are personal friends of Engelbert, were invited to participate in the celebrations, along with Ingrid Melicon – also a Sri Lankan, now domiciled in America.
The invitation said “An evening of music, memories and celebration. Let’s make it a night to remember!” And it certainly turned out to be a night never ever to be forgotten!

Invitees experienced a “magical entrance” with Engelbert’s name lighting up the screen and showing him performing his hit songs.
The invitees were also presented with a unique gift – a necklace with Engelbert’s face, engraved with the words “Remember, I Love You.”
Engelbert’s son, Bradley Dorsey, sang a tribute song ‘Only You’ for his dad, while Eddy Fisher’s daughters, Tricia and Joely, also got on stage to entertaining the distinguish gathering.
Engelbert didn’t perform but got on stage for the cutting of the birthday cake.
There was also a video compilation of birthday wishes from fellow celebrities, and the lineup included Gloria Gaynor, Micky Dolenz, Wayne Newton, Pat Boone, Lulu, Judy Collins, Deana Martin, Angélica María, Rupert Everett, Matt Goss, and more.

Birthday boy Engelbert Humperdinck
At 90, Engelbert is still performing. He’s on THE CELEBRATION TOUR for his 90th year, with over 50 international dates in 2026, including Australia, Germany, the US, and Canada. He’ll be at Massey Hall in, Toronto, on 06 October, 2026. He said: “The stage is my home… Canada has always been a highlight”.
He performed 60+ concerts, worldwide, in 2025, and says karaoke keeps his songs fresh: “Most of my songs are on karaoke because people love to sing them”.
-
News5 days agoLanka Port City officials to meet investors in Dubai
-
News2 days agoEx-SriLankan CEO’s death: Controversy surrounds execution of bail bond
-
News6 days agoSLPP expresses concern over death of former SriLankan CEO
-
Editorial7 days agoThe Vijay factor
-
News6 days agoPolice inform Fort Magistrate’s Court of finding ex-CEO of SriLankan dead under suspicious circumstances
-
Features3 days agoWhen University systems fail:Supreme Court’s landmark intervention in sexual harassment case
-
Features3 days agoHigh Stakes in Pursuing corruption cases
-
Features7 days agoPalm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – 1
