Editorial
Parliamentary election questions
Even before the ‘indelible’ ink marks placed on the left little fingernails of those who voted at the September 21 presidential election had faded or washed off, the concerned authorities last Friday began receiving nomination for the November 14 parliamentary election that follows. This process will continue till October 11 when the picture will become clearer. Questions already in the minds of voters, apart from the vital one of which party and what candidates they will choose, include whether figures prominent in the contemporary political picture will bow out. Former President Maithripala Sirisena’s son, Daham’s entry into Dilith Jayaweera’s party last week, is a clear indication that Sirisena Senior is retiring from politics at least for the moment. After defeating Mahinda Rajapaksa for the presidency in 2015, Sirisena opted to return to parliament under Rajapaksa colours, indicating his desire to remain in the game as a mere MP after being President of the Republic.
Will figures like Sarath Fonseka and Wijayadasa Rajapakshe follow Sirisena’s example and keep off the race? At present, many political figures of recent, and not so recent vintage, appear well and truly stranded. Given the manner in which several active figures in contemporary politics aligned with runners they favoured in the presidential contest, it was obvious that they were positioning themselves for the parliamentary election that has come earlier than some of them expected. While the NPP/JVP made clear that the first executive act of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake would be to dissolve parliament, neither Sajith Premadasa nor Ranil Wickremesinghe went public with what they planed to do had they emerged winners. As a result various arrangements would surely have been place in return for support in the presidential race.
The way the game is played in this so-called democratic socialist republic of ours, all kinds of deals including candidates who will run (and from where), national list slots, diplomatic appointments, corporation chairmanships and much more are demanded, and granted, in return for support. Delivery ability, of course, depends on electoral outcomes. Diana Gamage, for example, was able to negotiate a national list seat for herself in the last parliament with Sajith Premadasa in return for the recognized political party she claimed she “owned.” Of course Premadasa lost the August 2020 general election but was able, thanks to proportional representation, to accommodate Gamage on the SJB national list. It was not long before she jumped ship in return for a state ministry in the ruling government. Despite the challenge of her right to sit and vote in the legislature on account of her purported British citizenship, she enjoyed more than one crowded hour of glorious fame.
We wager it would be hard for the ordinary voter to keep track of who jumped from which party to the other in the run-up to the last presidential poll. Last week’s news was that there was no possibility now of an SJB – UNP alliance for the upcoming parliamentary election, although the two parties were in talks. Simple arithmetic on the presidential election results would have made abundantly clear to both Premadasa and Wickremesinghe that such an arrangement would have been advantageous to both sides. But that was not to be. While RW, predictably, was ever willing to let Sajith Premadasa be the prime ministerial candidate of such an alliance, he was unwilling to concede the leadership of the UNP to his one time deputy. He apparently insisted on retaining the party leadership and would not be fobbed off with a ceremonial elder statesman role in the party. So once again there will be no elephant symbol on the ballot paper and the gas cylinder will prevail.
As we have often said in this space, winning an election is a major advantage for the winner if another contest follows, especially as closely as this one. The pithy Sinhala idiom, vaasi paththata hoiya, (hurrah for the winning side) explains it all. With AKD’s comfortable win, although he did not clear the 50 percent plus one vote hurdle to be declared winner at the first count, he was way ahead of both Premadasa and Wickremesinghe with Namal Rajapaksa trailing behind a poor fourth. So that advantage is clearly with the NPP/JVP. The favourable post-election noises already made by the victors are most likely to have won that party more support than they commanded at the presidential election. Only its three MPs in the last parliament and a few other leaders have been visible to the public in the past. The constituents of its powerful Politbureau and Central and Executive Committees is little known. As a result the party’s candidates’ list for the parliamentary election will be most revealing. Voters would eagerly await its publiction to get acquainted with the future movers and shakers of government.
Other factors likely excite curiosity is the future of the Rajapaksa party. Will Basil Rajapaksa, long regarded not only as the pohottuwa’s founder, but also its eminence grise return to the country to organize the SLPP campaign as he had done at all recent elections? Or would he play safe? Would Mahinda Rajapaksa conclude his very long political innings and throw his hat into the ring one last time? From what appears on television screens, he appears getting frailer by the day.
The NPP/JVP will surely make a pitch for a two thirds majority in the new parliament. A simple majority, widely considered desirable in the context of past history (CBK vs. RW), is one thing. But absolute majorities such as those the country knew in 1970 and 1977 can be tyrannies. Remember Mrs. B extended the 1970 parliament by two years and JRJ the 1977 legislature by one full parliamentary term. Proportional Representation (PR) makes such majorities very difficult unlike first-past-the-post presidential elections. Hopefully there will be no two thirds. The September figures suggest this is very unlikely.
Editorial
Astrologers’ ire
Saturday 14th March, 2026
Some prominent astrologers are up in arms, claiming that the JVP-NPP government has not officially recognised the list of traditional New Year auspicious times or the nekath seettuwa they have submitted. They have been holding press conferences and raking the government leaders over the coals (pun intended) for what they describe as a sinister move to devalue the cultural significance of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. All previous governments officially endorsed the nekath seettu, according to which New Year activities are usually conducted.
The Department of Cultural Affairs has responded, saying that two groups of astrologers have submitted two different nekath seettu, and it will make a final decision after allowing public and expert views to be expressed thereon. It has also said that it, together with the Ministry of Buddhist and Religious Affairs, will continue to take necessary steps to safeguard and promote the country’s cultural values, including longstanding New Year traditions.
Sri Lankan governments want the public to do as they say, and they do as astrologers say. In the final analysis, the whole country does as astrologers say. There was a time when even military operations in the North and the East were conducted according to auspicious times. Many of them ended in disaster, and ones that were not launched according to auspicious times yielded the desired results in 2009. Interestingly, the President who provided political leadership for the country’s successful war on terror, suffered an ignominious defeat by advancing a presidential election on astrological advice. No astrologer could predict that another President would have to flee the country and resign.
Some critics of the incumbent government have claimed that it is not keen to recognise the New Year auspicious times officially as it is led by a bunch of Marxists who place no value on cultural practices. They have pointed out that Marxists generally treat astrology as superstition or a cultural phenomenon rather than a legitimate system within Marxist theory. However, Karl Marx has not made any specific reference to astrology though some Marxist scholars have taken a critical view thereof. In the 1950s, German philosopher, Theodor W. Adorno, a major Marxist influenced social theorist, wrote about astrology and horoscope columns in newspapers and magazines as part of his critique of mass culture under capitalism. He viewed astrology as a symptom of irrationalism and conformity in capitalist societies, where people are distracted from systemic social problems and instead turn to vague supernatural explanations. This view has gained currency among not only Marxists but many non-Marxist scholars and thinkers. One may recall that Voltaire also famously said, “Superstition is to religion what astrology to astronomy—the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth.” This is particularly true of Sri Lanka and some other countries in this region.
If auspicious times are based on mathematically determined planetary positions, how come there are two lists of nekath. How is the government going to decide which list is correct? One can only hope that the government will not favour the group of astrologers backed by NPP politicians. There is hardly anything that Sri Lankan politicians do not politicise. Unless the government handles the nekath issue carefully and resolves it to the satisfaction of both sides, there may be what can be described as an astrologers’ war, and the people who rely on the official nekath seettuwa to conduct the New Year rituals will be confused and the political opponents of the JVP/NPP will surely weaponise the issue.
Editorial
Heed ominous signs – II
Friday 13th March, 2026
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have not been able to stabilise the global oil market with their rhetoric and assurances. Their airstrikes on Iran’s naval ships, and mine-laying vessels, etc., have not helped make the Strait of Hormuz safe for international navigation. Iran has attacked six ships so far in that vital choke point. Oil prices began to climb again yesterday despite the release of 400 million barrels of oil, as part of a coordinated International Energy Agency action involving several countries. The US announced that it alone would release as many as 172 million barrels of oil to stabilise the market.
Having carried out successful attacks on vessels passing through the Hormuz Strait and sent the global oil market into panic mode, Iran now says it will stop attacks only on several conditions—end of US-Israeli military attacks, a binding guarantee that there will be no future strikes, recognition of Iran’s sovereign rights, and compensation for war damage. The US and Israel have ignored these conditions.
Prudence demands that Sri Lanka brace itself for an energy crisis. But the JVP-NPP government is all at sea, and its response to the crisis appears to be all over the place. It is apparently labouring under the misconception that it will be able to reduce fuel consumption and manage the crisis simply by jacking up prices. There’s no shame in rationing fuel during a global crisis, as we argued in a previous editorial comment. The previous government introduced a QR based fuel rationing system, which helped it not only overcome a crippling fuel crisis but also retain its hold on power. In fact, some economic advisors reportedly pushed for fuel rationing to prevent a crisis in early 2022, but the Rajapaksas ignored their counsel only to head for the hills with angry protesters in close pursuit a couple of months later.
Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe has claimed that recent panic buying and hoarding of fuel led to a depletion of the country’s petroleum reserves. His claim should be taken with a pinch of salt, for he is trying to justify the huge fuel price increases, but the government could have controlled that situation by resorting to QR-based fuel sales. The same method can be used to prevent many people from using extra gas cylinders to stock up on LPG at the expense of others. Some Litro agents themselves are known to hoard gas and sell it at a black market premium.
Thailand has said its energy reserves are sufficient for about 95 days, but it has already adopted emergency measures to curtail energy consumption. Many other countries have done the same. Pakistan has set an example worthy of emulation. The emergency fuel crisis management measures adopted by Pakistan include a four-day work week for state institutions, work from home for about half of employees in public and private sectors, except essential services, temporary closure of schools and universities, the introduction of online learning, 50% cut in fuel allocations for state vehicles besides the removal of around 60 percent of official vehicles off the road, restrictions on official travel and encouragement of virtual meetings in government institutions. Sri Lanka should learn from Pakistan’s fuel-saving approach.
In this country, no opening ceremony is considered complete without the presence of either the President or the Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister. We have had Presidents, Prime Ministers and ministers travelling all over the country, attending various ceremonies and meetings all these years; the incumbent rulers are no exception. The President, the Prime Minister and ministers can inaugurate projects and attend meetings remotely, and help save a lot of fuel and millions of rupees spent on security arrangements, etc. Why should the President travel all the way from Colombo to faraway places to attend District Coordination Committee meetings when he can address them online? Government politicians and officials ought to stop running around like headless chickens and help save fuel and state funds.
It is high time the government stopped dilly-dallying and introduced QR-based fuel rationing.
Editorial
ME War and the loser
Thursday 12th March, 2026
It is not possible to predict who will emerge victorious in the ongoing war in the Middle East or whether the conflict will end without a clear winner though US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have the world believe that they will surely be the winners. The US-Israel military power is doubtlessly far superior to that of Iran, but in a war of this nature, military might alone does not guarantee a clear victory.
Difficult as it may be to predict who will win in the current Gulf conflict, the overall loser is already known; it is the world economy. Global markets are heavily reliant on President Trump’s assurance that the war will not last long, and the release of the G7 strategic oil reserves to stabilise the world oil supply. But Trump’s most intense airstrikes on Tuesday have not yielded the desired results. Iran remains defiant and has raised the stakes for the global economy by threatening to bring oil exports from the region through the Strait of Hormuz to a complete halt unless the US and Israel stop attacks. It continues to fire missiles and carry out drone attacks on US interests in the region. Trump has announced that the US will seriously consider providing security to the ships sailing through the Hormuz Strait, but whether the US is equal to the task is the question. It is being argued in some quarters that Trump and Netanyahu have already bitten off more than they can chew.
There is reason to believe that Trump went to war with Iran without a proper assessment of the ground situation. His plan was to make short work of the current Iranian regime with shock-and-awe aerial bombardments and the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but his plan has apparently gone awry. The slain Iranian leader’s son has been elected the Supreme Leader. Trump may have expected the Iranian anti-government protesters to make the most of the ongoing bombing spree, come out in their millions and bring down their embattled regime, but they are silent today. Perhaps, they are too scared to challenge the beleaguered regime, which has warned that ‘every soldier has his finger on the trigger’ and protesters will be treated as traitors. It is also possible that the protesters are now disillusioned with the US after realising that Washington has sought to use them as a cat’s paw in its efforts to grab Iran’s oil resources.
Has the US made, in Iran, a military miscalculation similar to the one in Afghanistan? The US Intelligence community and the military estimated that Kabul was resilient enough to hold out for several months after the withdrawal of the US troops in 2021. But that city fell to the Taliban in days, causing the then US President Joe Biden to admit that the collapse had happened “more quickly than the US had anticipated”.
Iran may not have anticipated a joint US-Israel military operation of this magnitude. It remains to be seen whether Iran can sustain its missile and drone attacks vis-à-vis the US-Israeli air strikes on its arms stockpiles and military installations. However, what one gathers from the views of military analysts is that it is very unlikely that President Trump will go so far as to deploy ground troops in Iran, with about 59% of Americans opposing his war, according to opinion surveys. In its war for oil in Iraq, the US had the backing of a much broader international coalition.
Nothing could be more humiliating to the US than Washington’s call for help from Ukraine to deal with the Iranian drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom President Trump once showed the door during a White House meeting, has confirmed that the US sought his help to defend its allies in the Persian Gulf against the Iranian drones. Did Trump start a war without a proper assessment of the enemy’s drone capability?
The enormous economic cost of the Middle East conflict will have to be borne by not only the parties thereto but also by the entire world. Trump’s assurances and the G7 responses have prevented panic in global markets, but unless the US and Israel end the war soon and take steps to keep the Strait of Hormuz functional, oil prices will soar again, pushing the world closer to a global recession. If Trump and Netanyahu stop their war midway, they will face a domestic political backlash. Trump and Netanyahu have the Epstein files and corruption charges to contend with, respectively. The Trump administration is facing midterm elections in November. Politically speaking, Trump and Netanyahu are on a tiger ride in the Middle East.
The biggest challenge before the US and Israel in the ongoing conflict is to prevent Iran from shifting the war to the economic front, and make the global economy scream.
-
News6 days agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
Features6 days agoWinds of Change:Geopolitics at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia
-
News5 days agoProf. Dunusinghe warns Lanka at serious risk due to ME war
-
Sports4 days agoRoyal start favourites in historic Battle of the Blues
-
Sports3 days agoThe 147th Royal–Thomian and 175 Years of the School by the Sea
-
News3 days agoHistoric address by BASL President at the Supreme Court of India
-
News4 days agoCEBEU warns of operational disruptions amid uncertainty over CEB restructuring
-
Business7 days agoSeven decades of sartorial excellence: The legacy of Linton Master Tailors in Kandy
