Connect with us

Features

Please don’t forget people who elected you, Mr. President!

Published

on

Ven. Gnanasara rowing with the police (file photo)

By Rohana R. Wasala 

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

– Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43 BCE)

According to a popular online Sinhala language news portal (October 31), President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has said that he appointed (Bodu Bala Sena leader) Ven. Galagodaatthe Gnanasara Thera as chairman of the (recently established) “One Country One Law” Presidential Task Force to advise him, but not to make laws. The President made this remark when asked about the PTF at a government party leaders’ meeting. He pointed out that he had the ability to appoint any person to the PTF according to his personal preference. He was also reported to have said that if he tried to consult party leaders about everything, he would have to get their permission about associating with friends! (Aside: As President, he ought to seek advice from sincere, non-politicking people about that, too. RRW)

The President further said that the same sort of objections were raised when he appointed Ali Sabry as Minister of Justice; but now he is performing his duties to the satisfaction of everyone, the President added.

Talking about advice, I think President Gotabaya should take MK Sivajilingam’s demand as helpful advice and immediately disband the ‘farce’ (as the latter correctly describes it) of this one-country, one-law Task Force headed by Ven. Galagodaatthe Gnanasara Thera. The value of Sivajilingam’s request lies in the fact that he cannot have any intention of betraying the president; only close friends can betray a person, but not an enemy or a stranger. Sivajilingam is an enemy at the gate (Pl. see the epigraph above), but an enemy that we know as one of our fellow Sri Lankans (who doesn’t show false friendship), with whom we can easily restore our traditional bonds of brotherhood by sorting out our domestic problems through talks among ourselves without disgracefully allowing outsiders to exploit them for their own advantage and to our common detriment.

The reference in this case is to The Island correspondent Dinasena Ratugamage’s dispatch “Sivajilingam tells President to disband ‘one-country, one-law’ Task Force and solve the country’s problems” (Saturday, October 30) about MK Sivajilingam, former Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Northern Provincial Councillor and close relative of Velupillai Prabhakaran, speaking to the media in Jaffna the previous day (Friday 29). He was reported to have claimed that the Task Force was an attempt to boost President Rajapaksa’s flagging popularity. Sivajilingam recalled the President’s earlier promise of a new constitution to safeguard the rights of every citizen.  “Everyone wants the President to come up with a new Constitution. There is pressure to address the issues faced by the Tamil people. However, the President has suddenly appointed a Task Force on “One Country One Law”. The task force is a joke. Appointing Ven. Galagodaatte Gnanasara Thera as the head of the task force makes it a farce,” he was reported as saying. (He’d have been closer to the truth if he said, ‘There’s pressure on the President to address the issues faced by all Sri Lankans, not just by the Tamil people’. But he can’t be blamed for focusing on the community that he represents, in this instance.)

“The task force was not appointed after consulting people. We urge the government to stop distracting people and address the real issues. What we need is a task force to get the country out of the economic, social and political disasters it is facing. The leaders must be smart enough to get the support of everyone. If the government doesn’t show it cares about Tamils, they will  keep on opposing the government. A divided country can’t face the challenges we are facing now,” he said. I, for one, agree with him. That bit about caring about Tamils, though justified from his point of view, is a different matter, but the same is applicable to every community, and is not an insurmountable obstacle to the restoration of unity among the communities.

Of course, Sivajilingam may be making this demand or offering this advice, tongue in cheek; he may be calling the president’s bluff. Sivajilingam is a politician and, since all politicians are typically wily, must be handled with care. Having said that, I think his comments should be taken as a piece of constructive criticism that offers an opportunity for opening a people-to-people dialogue involving the north and the south with a view to bringing about an end to the reluctant mutual estrangement between the two communities that has been deliberately created by opportunistic politicians of both sides.

Let me try to put Sivajilingam’s remarks in perspective according to my own lights as a Sri Lankan citizen with a certain degree of hindsight (due to my age), insight (gained through formal and informal education and life experience) and a modest amount of foresight (sharpened by both).

The  responsible citizens of Sri Lanka pulled the country back from the brink of national disintegration and general disaster by electing Gotabaya Rajapaksa (his chief attraction was his non-politician image) as president and the SLPP to parliament less than two years ago. In both cases the election was fought on the major platform of ‘One Country, One Law’, in  which for completely apolitical reasons, Buddhist monks take an intrinsic interest. But now it looks like Gotabaya has been betrayed and, into the bargain, converted into something even more malleable than his predecessor to the wishes of another. The circumstances (i.e., issues and the government’s authoritarian responses to them) are again pushing the country to the edge of a precipice.

An Extraordinary Gazette notification was issued on October 27, 2021 to the effect that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had appointed a 13-member Presidential Task Force (PTF), using powers vested in him as president by Article 33 of the Constitution, 1. To make a study of the implementation of the concept: “One Country, One Law” within Sri Lanka and prepare a draft Act for the said purpose and 2. To study the draft Acts and amendments that have already been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in relation to this subject and their appropriateness, and if there are suitable amendments to submit proposal (sic) for the purpose and include them in such relevant draft as is deemed appropriate.

I was deeply shocked and disappointed when my eyes fell on the relevant gazette notification online within a few hours of its issuance on 27 October. My immediate mental reaction was: ‘What a harebrained initiative!’ To be frank, I never expected this sort of frivolous exercise from Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in whom I have had implicit faith. But then, we can only guess that he has done this under constraint.

The PTF was ostensibly established to study how to put into effect the “One Country, One Law” concept and how to bring the ‘Acts and amendments’ already drawn up by the ministry of justice into line with that concept. The committee comprises the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) leader Ven. Galagodaaththe (not Galabodaaththe?) Gnanasara Thera (Chairman) and twelve others including academics, lawyers, and eminent persons (the last category has a maulavi from the Galle Ulama Council and three other Muslims. The Galle Ulama Council is supposed to be anti-Wahhabi, as allegedly claimed elsewhere. The PTF originally had no Tamils or explicit representatives of any Christian or Hindu religious organization. In view of the objectives stated, this was a glaring shortcoming, that would not have been allowed to happen, if the President had any sincere adviser.

 This totally erroneous exclusion of Tamils provided a genuine reason for Sivajilingam to complain. However, at a meeting chaired by the President at Temple Trees the next day (October 28), Fisheries Minister Douglas Devananda and Deputy Chairman of Ceylon Workers Congress Senthil Thondaman and several others raised this issue of non-representation of Tamils in the PTF and the President agreed to correct the anomaly. Please treat these Hindu Tamil leaders as well as you treat Muslim and Christian leaders. We need every community’s cooperation to neutralise the looming fundamentalist threat.

 In my humble opinion, the appointment of this task force will prove a suicidal move both for the Gotabaya presidency and the SLPP government. The negative image of the monk who heads it, whether justified or not, the apparent mediocrity of the rest of the members, and the suspicion of an anti-Tamil bias generated by the initial imbalance of its communal composition (though set right later) will be major setbacks for its success. The PTF appears to me to be a hastily but cunningly devised contraption designed by a saboteur so as to be dysfunctional from the beginning, and to ultimately kill the project it was purportedly set up to bring to fruition (i.e., the one country, one law project). It seems to be the sinister proposition of an evil genius within the president’s inner circle.

To be continued



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

on

I. The Constitutional Context

Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.

As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].

II. A Proposal for Reform

This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.

This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.

What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.

III. Governing Considerations of Policy

What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.

Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).

The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.

Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).

IV. Practical Constraints

Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.

A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.

Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.

If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.

This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.

V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?

If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.

VI. Conclusion

In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

Continue Reading

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

on

In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.

According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.

In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.

Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.

As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

on

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending