Connect with us

Features

Post-War Reconciliation Process: Human Rights violation

Published

on

By Dr. S.W. Premaratne
Attorney-at-Law

At each session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in Geneva, at which the Post-War Reconciliation Process in Sri Lanka was considered, special attention was drawn to the issue of alleged violation of human rights, and humanitarian law, during the last stage of the war, and also the need for taking remedial steps for improving the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. In this article, attention of the reader is drawn to the inconsistency, and contradictory nature of the policy, adopted by successive governments, in Sri Lanka, in response to the role played by the United Nations, and the adverse effect of the failure on the part of the Sri Lankan government to be guided by a consistent and diplomatically pragmatic policy.

Joint Statement of the UNSG and the President of Sri Lanka in 2009

Immediately after the conclusion of the war, in May 2009, the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG), Ban Ki-moon, paid a visit to Sri Lanka and, after a discussion with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, a joint statement was issued on May 23, 2009. According to the Joint Statement, Sri Lanka agreed to attend to the immediate needs of the people, affected by the war, and to initiate a reconciliation process, with the objective of achieving durable peace and economic development, for the benefit of all sections of the Sri Lankan population. The President also gave an assurance, to the UNSG, to attend to the matters that need the most urgent attention, such as the re-settlement of Internationally Displaced Persons (IDP), reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, rehabilitation and reintegration of former child soldiers, and ex-combatants, to civilian life. Of course, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government did not hesitate to attend to most of the above-mentioned immediate needs of the war-affected people, in the North-East.

In the joint statement of the UNSG and the President of Sri Lanka, the most significant part was the expression of the Sri Lankan government’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with the international human rights standards, and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. It is also very significant that the UNSG underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. According to the joint statement, the President agreed to the need for establishing a mechanism for holding an independent investigation into the allegations of serious violations of human rights, and humanitarian law, both by the LTTE and the Sri Lankan armed forces, committed during the last stage of the war. In expression of Sri Lanka’s strong commitment to fulfill the obligations, in respect of promoting human rights, the Sri Lankan government made a proposal, entitled “assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights,” to the UNHRC, on May 27, 2009.

The Sri Lankan government, thereafter, proceeded to appoint the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The LLRC has made a comprehensive analysis of the causes of the conflict and the remedial steps that should be taken by the government for restoration of durable peace and reconciliation. Regarding the issue of violation of human rights, the following recommendations were made by the LLRC:

(i) Launching a full investigation into incidents of disappearance of persons, after surrender to official custody, and, where necessary, instituting prosecutions. According to the LLRC recommendations, instituting prosecutions against the offenders is an imperative, also for the purpose of clearing the good name of the Sri Lankan Army “who have, by and large, conducted themselves in an exemplary manner, in the surrender process”.

(ii) To investigate the specific instances, referred to in the Report, and any reported cases of deliberate attacks on civilians. If the investigations disclose the commission of any offences, appropriate legal action should be taken to prosecute/punish the offenders.

(iii) Regarding the controversial “Channel 4 Video” the LLRC recommended an independent investigation to find out the truth, or otherwise, of the video footage. If such investigation reveals the commission of any offences, it is necessary to prosecute such offenders.

(iv) The Commission also recommended the investigation of alleged disappearances and provide material to the Attorney General to institute criminal proceedings.

(v) The LLRC also brought the attention of the government to instances of persons being detained in custody for a long period of time, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Although the government, led by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, initially indicated its willingness to fulfil the commitments undertaken, with respect to the violation of human rights, and humanitarian law, by the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE, on the occasion of issuing the joint statement with the Secretary General, it became clear, subsequently, that the political leaders in power, led by President Rajapaksa, did not have the political will to act. They were guided by the mindset that by defeating the LTTE, who were generally recognized, at that stage, as a terrorist movement, the Sri Lankan armed forces had been able to unite the country and restore peace after making innumerable sacrifices and, therefore, there was no need for a reconciliation process.

The sponsors of the Resolution 19/2, adopted before the UNHRC, in Geneva, in 2012, required the Sri Lankan government to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. The need for holding an investigation into the allegations of serious violations of human rights, and humanitarian law, during the last stage of the Eelam War IV, was emphasised in the UNHRC Resolutions, adopted in 2012, and the subsequent resolutions, adopted in 2013 and 2014.

Regarding the involvement of the international community, as members of the United Nations and the UNHRC, in a reconciliation process, the attitude of the Mahinda Rajapaksa government was that Sri Lanka being a sovereign state, the other countries, or even the UN, had no right to interfere with or make any recommendations, regarding the settlement of domestic issues of Sri Lanka. The representatives of the Sri Lankan government, who participated in the UNHRC sessions, argued that the officials of the UN and the UNHRC, interfering in the domestic issues of Sri Lanka, amounts to violation of sovereignty of this country. Therefore, such interventions are illegal and as such Sri Lanka was not bound to implement these recommendations of the UNHRC. Regarding the allegation of serious violations of human rights, the response of the Sri Lankan government was that Eelam War IV was a humanitarian operation, conducted strictly in adherence to human rights law, and humanitarian law, and in the course of the military operations, violations of human rights were committed, only by the LTTE.

Regime change in 2015

A change of attitude, towards the involvement of the international community, could be observed during the Yahapalana administration, led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (2015-2019).

The representatives of the Sri Lankan government, at the UNHRC sessions, in Geneva, co-sponsored the Resolution 30/1, which required the Sri Lankan government to hold a credible investigation, by a hybrid tribunal, consisting of both local and foreign judges, to investigate alleged violation of human rights, and humanitarian law, by the members of the armed forces, and the LTTE, during the last stage of the war.

It can be stated that the Sri Lankan government, at that stage, adopted a pragmatic approach by co-sponsoring the resolution. At that stage, the Sri Lankan government felt the state of insolation from the international community, including India, that supported the sponsors of the Resolution against Sri Lanka. The Yahapalana government perceived serious negative consequences if the Sri Lankan government continued to oppose the UNHRC resolutions.

The Yahapalana government also took several constructive steps that contributed towards the creation of a conducive environment for meaningful reconciliation. Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, Mangala Munasinghe, who participated in the UNHRC sessions, during which the Resolution 30/1 was co-sponsored, informed the UNHRC that the government would initiate a domestic mechanism, after consulting all parties who have a stake in an effective reconciliation process. The Yahapalana government was able to establish domestic mechanisms, such as the Office of Missing Persons (OMP), and the Office for Reparations. These institutions were able to function effectively, at the initial stage. Signing of the International Convention, on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, on May 25, 2016, and drafting a Bill for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, are some of the progressive steps taken by the Yahapalana government.

Recapture of Political Power by Rajapaksa brothers

The Presidential election, held in November, 2019 and the General elections, in August 2020, brought back to power same political leaders who ruled the country, prior to 2015. This change of government resulted in the reversal of the Sri Lankan government’s policy towards involvement of the UN in the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. The government, led by the Rajapaksa brothers, opposed the Resolutions brought before the UNHRC, in Geneva, against Sri Lanka and adopted the same confrontationist approach towards the UN’s involvement in the reconciliation process. Co-sponsoring the Resolution 30/1 and co-operating with the UNHRC, by the Yahapalana government, was projected to the Sri Lanka electorate, during the election propaganda campaigns, as an unpardonable betrayal of the armed forces, and the Sri Lankan nation, by the Yahapalana government.

46th Sessions

The Resolution, titled “Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights,” was adopted by the UNHRC, in Geneva, on March 23, 2021, during the 46th Sessions. By this resolution, a mandate was given to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for initiating a fresh inquiry, outside Sri Lanka, regarding the accountability issues. In this resolution, there is a provision according to which the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is authorized to take on the role of collecting evidence to be used in such prosecutions in the future.

Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, making a statement to Parliament of Sri Lanka, subsequent to the adoption of the Resolution before the UNHRC, stated that by the adoption of this resolution, the UN sought to interfere in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Sri Lanka. He further stated that there was no moral right to interfere into affairs of a sovereign country in this manner. The Minister said that “Sri Lanka categorically rejects this unprecedented proposal in the Resolution”.

48th, 49th and 50th Sessions of the UNHRC

In the reports submitted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelot, at the 48th, 49th and 50th Sessions of the UNHRC, she brought the attention of the Sri Lankan government to the concerns of the UNHRC, regarding inadequate progress in the human rights situation, and also the inadequate action taken regarding the investigation of alleged human rights violations, during the last stage of the war.

Her reports also dealt with the various aspects of human rights violations that occurred in Sri Lanka, under the Rajapaksa administration. She made special reference to the increasing militarization of the civil functions of the government, intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, and journalists, and members of civil rights organizations, which criticized government policies, and detention of individuals, for long periods of time, without trial, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

In the report submitted at the 49th sessions, the High Commissioner stated that the OHCHR had already established a “Sri Lanka Accountability Project” and even allocated funds for it. In the report submitted at the 50th Sessions also she referred to this “Accountability Project” outside Sri Lanka, which may have serious consequences a far as Sri Lanka’s relations with leading democratic countries are concerned, especially at a time Sri Lanka is grappling with a veryserious economic crises.

Anti-government protests in Sri Lanka

Only a few hours after President Ranil Wickremesinghe assuming duties of his office, the armed commandos of the Police and troops of the security forces were used to disperse the peaceful, unarmed protesters from the Presidential Secretariat area of the Galle Face, in the early hours of 22nd July. Attention of the international community has been drawn to the undemocratic step of imposing a State of Emergency, and initiating an operation for arresting the protesters who played a leading role in the protest campaign. A message from the US and the Sri Lanka core-group of the UNHRC stated: “The Human Rights Council Sri Lanka Core-Group is dismayed at the violation which took place at Galle Face. We call for full respect for human rights and rule of law”.

Even prior to this unlawful act of attacking the protesters, on July 22, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, in his report to the UNHRC, at the 50th Session, held in June 2022, had already warned that Sri Lanka police frequently appear to respond to protests by arresting their participants, in violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly”.

Conclusion

The fact that the core-group, and their supporting members of the UNHRC, are determined to go ahead with a project, outside Sri Lanka, for investigating the allegations of serious violations of human rights, and humanitarian law, during the last stage of the war, and continued vigilance of the democratic members of the UNHRC, regarding the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, after the conclusion of the war, has caused irreparable injury to Sri Lanka’s friendly relations with these countries. There is no doubt that the Sri Lankan government is now concerned about the highly damaging consequences of the failure to adopt a consistent and diplomatically pragmatic policy in respect of the role assumed by the UN to ensure that Sri Lanka would initiate and proceed with a credible and transparent reconciliation process after the conclusion of the war.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

The Paradox of Coercion: US strategy and the global re-emergence of Iran

Published

on

Iranians vowing resistance at a mass funeral of the victims of US-Israeli airstrikes

(A sequel to the two-part article, War with Iran and unravelling of the global order, published in The Island on April 8 and 9.)

The unfolding developments in the US-Israeli coordinated military attack against Iran reveal a striking paradox at contemporary geopolitics: efforts to weaken a state through coercion may, under certain conditions, contribute to its structural elevation within the international system. What appears as short-term tactical success can generate long-term strategic consequences that are neither anticipated nor easily reversible. In this context, the policies associated with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, marked by unilateralism and the willingness to use force, risk producing precisely such an unintended outcome. Rather than marginalising Iran, their actions may be accelerating its re-emergence, not merely as a regional actor in the Middle East, but as a consequential player in the global geopolitics and the wider architecture of international supply chains of energy economy.

Iran not merely a state

Iran is not merely a state, but a civilisation with a distinctive political trajectory. At the heart of the present transformation lies its asymmetric strategy, rooted in the strategic exploitation of geography. Few states possess the capacity to shape the global system through geography alone. Iran’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passage through which a substantial share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows, endows it with a latent structural power that transcends conventional measures of national capability.

In periods of stability, this position translates into economic opportunity; in moments of crisis, it becomes a lever of systemic disruption. Recent tensions have demonstrated that even limited instability in this corridor can reverberate across global markets, triggering sharp increases in energy prices, disrupting supply chains, and amplifying inflationary pressures worldwide. Should Iran consolidate its capacity to influence or control this chokepoint, whether through military deterrence, asymmetric instruments, or diplomatic maneuvering, it would shift from being a participant in global energy markets to a pivotal arbiter of their functioning.

Energy-embedded global economy

The contemporary global economy is not merely energy-dependent; it is deeply energy-embedded. Hydrocarbons underpin not only transportation and electricity generation but also the production of petrochemicals, fertilisers, and a wide range of industrial inputs essential to modern manufacturing and food systems. Disruptions linked to Iran have already illustrated how shocks in the energy sector cascade through interconnected supply chains, affecting everything from agricultural output to high-technology industries. In this sense, Iran’s leverage is no longer confined to the traditional realm of resource geopolitics. It increasingly operates within a networked global system in which control over a single critical node can generate disproportionate influence across multiple sectors. This form of power, diffuse, indirect, and systemic, marks a departure from the more linear dynamics of twentieth-century oil politics.

The implications of such a shift are profound for the structure of the international order. For decades, the global system has been underpinned by a set of institutions, norms, and economic arrangements often described as the so-called liberal international order. Sanctions, financial controls, and diplomatic isolation have been key instruments through which dominant powers have sought to discipline states that challenge this order. However, Iran’s prolonged exposure to sanctions has compelled it to develop adaptive strategies: alternative trade networks, informal financial channels, and closer ties with non-Western partners. A crisis-induced re-entry into global markets would therefore not signify reintegration into the existing order, but rather the expansion of parallel systems that operate alongside, and sometimes in opposition to, it. In this context, Iran’s rise would contribute to the gradual fragmentation of the global economy, accelerating trends toward decoupling, regionalization, and the erosion of established institutional authority.

Decline of global order based on US hegemony

This process of fragmentation is closely linked to declining global order based on U.S. hegemony. A more globally consequential Iran would inevitably become a focal point in the strategic player in emerging multipolar world. For China, whose economic growth remains heavily dependent on secure energy supplies, deeper engagement with Iran would serve both economic and geopolitical objectives, reinforcing its presence in the broader Middle East and insulating it from vulnerabilities associated with maritime chokepoints. Russia, already positioned as a major energy exporter and a challenger to Western dominance, may find in Iran a complementary partner in reshaping global energy markets and contesting sanctions regimes. Meanwhile, countries across the Global South, including major importers such as India, would face a more complex strategic environment, characterized by heightened exposure to supply disruptions and increased pressure to navigate between competing power centers. In this emerging landscape, Iran would function less as an isolated actor and more as a pivotal node within a reconfigured network of global alignments.

Dynamics enhancing Iran’s strategic importance

Paradoxically, the very dynamics that enhance Iran’s strategic importance may also accelerate efforts to reduce dependence on the conditions that enable its influence. Recurrent energy shocks tend to catalyze policy responses aimed at diversification and resilience. States are likely to expand strategic reserves, invest in alternative supply routes, and accelerate transitions toward renewable energy and nuclear power. Over the longer term, such measures could diminish the centrality of fossil fuel chokepoints, thereby constraining Iran’s leverage. However, this transition will be uneven and contested. Advanced economies may possess the resources to adapt more rapidly, while developing countries remain structurally dependent on affordable hydrocarbons. In the interim, the global system may experience a prolonged period in which dependence on Iranian-linked energy flows coexists with attempts to transcend it—a duality that adds further complexity to the evolving geopolitical landscape.

Beyond material considerations, Iran’s potential re-emergence also signals a deeper transformation of the existing global order. Traditional metrics—military strength, economic size, technological capacity—remain somewhat important, but they are increasingly complemented by the ability to influence critical nodes within global networks. The capacity to disrupt, delay, or redirect flows of energy, goods, and capital can generate strategic effects that rival, or even surpass, those achieved through direct military confrontation. In this sense, Iran exemplifies a broader shift from territorial geopolitics to what might be termed network geopolitics. Control over chokepoints, supply chains, and infrastructural linkages become a central determinant of influence, enabling states with relatively limited ‘conventional’ capabilities to exert outsized impact on the international system.

Iran’s trajectory may be understood as a transition through several distinct phases: from a regional challenger seeking to assert influence within the Middle East, to a strategic disruptor capable of unsettling global markets, and ultimately to a systemic actor whose decisions carry worldwide consequences. This evolution is neither inevitable nor linear; it depends on a complex interplay of domestic resilience, external pressures, and the responses of other global actors. Nevertheless, the possibility itself underscores the unintended consequences of policies that prioritize short-term coercion over long-term strategic foresight.

Transition shaped by paradoxes

In historical perspective, moments of systemic transition are often shaped by such paradoxes. Actions taken to preserve an existing order can, under certain conditions, accelerate its transformation. The current crisis involving Iran may represent one such moment. By elevating the strategic significance of energy chokepoints, exposing the vulnerabilities of interconnected supply chains, and encouraging the development of alternative economic networks, it contributes to a broader reconfiguration of global power. In this emerging context, Iran’s re-emergence as a global actor would not simply reflect its own capabilities or ambitions; it would also embody the structural shifts reshaping the international system itself. What began as an effort to constrain Iran may ultimately facilitate its transformation into a decisive player in the global energy economy and supply chain architecture. The implications of this shift extend far beyond the Middle East, touching upon the stability of markets, the cohesion of international institutions, and the evolving nature of power in the twenty-first century.

The war with Iran is best understood not as a discrete regional conflict, but as a structural moment in the transformation of the international system. It reveals a growing disjuncture between the continued reliance on coercive statecraft and the realities of an interdependent global order in which power increasingly derives from control over critical economic and infrastructural nodes. Rather than achieving strategic containment, the conflict has underscored the capacity of a relatively constrained actor to generate systemic effects through geoeconomic leverage. In doing so, it highlights a broader shift from military-centric conceptions of power toward forms of influence embedded in networks of energy, trade, and supply chains.

This is not merely a redistribution of power, but a redefinition of how power operates. At the systemic level, the war accelerates the erosion of the post-Cold War order, reinforcing tendencies toward fragmentation, parallel economic arrangements, and multipolar competition. Iran’s potential re-emergence as a global actor should therefore be seen less as an isolated outcome than as a manifestation of these deeper structural changes. In this sense, the strategic significance of the war lies in its unintended consequences: it exposes the limits of coercive hegemony while simultaneously amplifying the importance of those actors positioned to exploit the vulnerabilities of an interconnected world.

by Gamini Keerawella ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

The dawn of smart help for little ones

Published

on

How Artificial Intelligence is breaking barriers in Autism Diagnosis and Care

For any parent, the early years are a most valuable countdown of “firsts” of his or her precious child: the first step, the first clear word, the first beautiful smile, and quite a few other firsts as well. Yet for all that, for some families, that joy is overshadowed by a growing, quiet, but disturbing intuition that something is even a little bit different. Perhaps a child is not responding to his or her name, or the little one seems to be more interested in the spinning wheels of a toy than a game of peek-a-boo, or even avoids normal social responses.

In many countries, especially in the developing world, the road from that first “gut feeling” that there is something wrong, to a formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is often a long and exhausting journey. While doctors can often identify autism in children as young as 12 to 18 months, the average age of diagnosis in our communities still hovers around four years. In these critical years, when a child’s brain is most like a machine ready to learn and adapt, time is of the essence and is the most valuable resource a family has.

Today, a new “algorithmic dawn” is offering a shortcut to really cut that delay. Artificial Intelligence (AI), the very same smart technology that helps us navigate traffic, suggest a new song, or help people with ChatGPT, is moving out of the lab and into the children’s nursery. By acting as a digital “magnifying glass”, specifically designed AI tools can now spot subtle patterns in a child’s gaze, some little quirks in the rhythm of their babbling, or the way they move, often much faster than the human eye can. Then the machine can issue a warning signal and indicate that further action and a proper evaluation are necessary. This is most certainly not about replacing the brain, the heart and the expertise of a paediatrician; it is about providing “Smart Help” that can be accessed from a smartphone in a family living room. For millions of “little ones on the spectrum”, most notably in the developing world, this technology is turning a journey once defined by waiting, uncertainty and even tears, into one of proactive care and even brighter horizons. The time gained is most certainly a very valuable window of opportunity.

What is the “Spectrum,” and Why Does Time Matter?

Autism is described as a “spectrum” because it affects many children somewhat differently and to varying degrees. Some children may have advanced technical skills but struggle to hold a conversation; others may be non-verbal or have intense sensory sensitivities. It can be very mild or very severe, and perhaps everywhere in between as well.

The common thread is that the brain develops differently in these affected children. This is why Early Intervention is the gold-standard goal. During the toddler years, a child’s brain is incredibly “plastic”, meaning that it is a highly adaptable and ready to learn type of organ. Starting therapy and management strategies during this valuable period of opportunity can fundamentally change a child’s future life path.

The problem, to a certain extent, is that traditional diagnosis of ASD is a slow, manual process. It requires intensively trained experts to watch a child play for hours and fill out complex checklists. In many countries, including Sri Lanka, where there is a massive shortage of these highly qualified specialists, the waiting list for a consultation alone can take months or even years. These doyens are rather thin on the ground and even when available, are heavily overworked.

Enter the AI Revolution: Seeing the Unseen

AI certainly does NOT replace doctors, but it acts like a high-powered magnifying glass. By using “Machine Learning”, computers can analyse massive amounts of data to find tiny patterns that the human eye might miss. Here is how it is changing the game:

1. Tracking Gaze and Smiles

One of the earliest signs of autism is how a child looks at the world. AI “Computer Vision” can analyse a simple video of a child playing. It can track exactly where the child is looking. Does the child look at a person’s eyes when they speak, or are they drawn to the spinning wheels of a toy in the corner? AI can quantify these “social attention” patterns in seconds and add them to a cache of things that ring warning bells.

2. The Sound of a Voice

Did you know that the “music” of a child’s speech can hold clues? AI can listen to the pitch and rhythm (called prosody) of a child’s voice. Children on the spectrum sometimes have a “flat” or monotonic way of speaking. AI algorithms can measure these vocal biomarkers with incredible precision, helping to flag concerns long before a child is old enough for a full conversation.

3. Movement and Play

Repetitive behaviour, like hand-flapping or rocking, are core traits of ASD. Sensors in smartphones or simple video analysis can now categorise these movements objectively. Instead of a parent trying to describe how often a behaviour happens, the application or ‘app’ provides a clear, data-driven report for the doctor.

Innovation at Home: India’s Digital Solutions

The most exciting part of this technology is that it does not require a million-dollar lab. In India, where smartphone use is booming, several “homegrown” apps are bringing specialist-level screening to rural and urban homes alike.

Apps like CogniAble, which give parents a step-by-step intervention plan based on the child’s specific needs, or START, a tablet-based tool used by local health workers in areas like Delhi slums to spot risks via simple games, or LEEZA.APP, which offers free AI screening to remove the “money barrier” that keeps many families from seeking help, or AutismBASICS, which provides thousands of activities and a milestone tracker to help parents manage daily therapy at home, are just a few of the programs in use at present. These tools are “democratising” healthcare. A mother in a remote village with a basic smartphone can now access the same level of screening logic that was once only available in a major city hospital.

Beyond the Diagnosis: A Robot Tutor?

The role of AI does not stop once a diagnosis is made. It is also becoming a tireless “co-therapist.”

For many children with autism, the human world can be unpredictable and overwhelming. AI-powered “Social Robots” or interactive apps provide a safe, predictable environment. These “Robo-Therapists” do not get tired, they do not get frustrated, and they can repeat a social lesson even 100 times until the child feels comfortable.

Furthermore, for children who are nonverbal, AI-powered communication apps serve as a “voice”. These apps use smart technology to predict what a child wants to say, allowing and facilitating them to express their needs and feelings to their parents, even for the very first time.

The Human Element: Proceed with Care

As bright as this dawn is, experts warn that we must move forward carefully and most intelligently.

= Privacy: Because these apps collect sensitive videos and data about children, keeping that information secure is a top priority.

= Cultural Differences: An AI trained on children in the US or Europe might not perfectly understand a child in Sri Lanka. We need “diverse local data” to ensure the algorithms understand our local languages, gestures, and social norms. Many of these programs need to be home-grown or baked at home in Sri Lanka.

= The Human Touch: Most importantly, we need to always remember that AI is a tool, not a replacement. A computer can spot a pattern, but it cannot give a hug, provide emotional support to a struggling parent, or celebrate a breakthrough with the same joy as a human therapist.

A Brighter Future

We are moving toward a world where “waiting and seeing” is no longer, and quite definitely, not the only option for parents. By combining the heart of a parent and the expertise of a doctor with the speed of an algorithm, we can ensure that no child is left behind because of where they live or how much money they have.

The “Algorithmic Dawn” is not just about code and data. It is about giving every child the best possible start in life. It is the main principle on which Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, all those centuries ago, based all his postulations on how physicians should work.

 The “Red Flag” Checklist: 18 to 24 Months

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening all children at 18 and 24 months. If you notice several of these signs, it is time to use an AI screening app or consult your paediatrician.

Communication and Social Cues

= The Name Test: Does your child consistently fail to turn around or look at you when you call his or her name?

= The Pointing Test: By 18 months, most toddlers point at things they want (like a biscuit) or things they find interesting (like a dog). Is your child using your hand as a “tool” to get things instead of pointing?

= The Eye Contact Test: Does your child avoid looking at your face during social interactions or during play or when being fed?

= The Shared Smile: Does your child rarely smile back when you smile at him or her?

Behaviour and Play

= The Toy Test: Does your child play with toys in “unusual” ways? (e.g., instead of rolling a car, they spend 20 minutes just spinning one wheel or lining them up in a perfect, rigid line).

= The Routine Rule: Do they have an extreme “meltdown” over tiny changes, like taking a different route to the park or using a different coloured cup?

= Repetitive Motions: Do you notice frequent hand-flapping, rocking, or spinning in circles, especially when they are excited or upset?

The “Golden Rule” of Regression

Finally, an extremely important rule for concerned parents to follow.

If your little one had words (like “Mama” or “Dada” or “Amma” or “Thaththa” or Thaii/Amma or Appa) or social skills (like waving “Bye-Bye”) and a beautiful social smile etc, and then SUDDENLY STOPS USING THEM, that could be a most significant red flag. In such situations, the standard advice would be: Please consult a doctor immediately.

by Dr B. J. C. Perera

MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics),
MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK),
FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow,
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Continue Reading

Features

Governance, growth and our regional moment:Why Sri Lanka must choose wisely

Published

on

The recent disclosure of a substantial internal fraud at National Development Bank has understandably unsettled the financial community. What began as a relatively contained incident has since been revised upwards, revealing a scheme that operated over an extended period within a specific operational area. To their credit, both the bank and the Central Bank of Sri Lanka responded with speed. Staff were suspended, arrests followed, an independent forensic review was commissioned, and clear assurances were given that customer funds remained secure. The institution’s capital and liquidity positions continue to meet regulatory requirements, and day to day operations have not been disrupted.

Yet it would be a mistake to view this as an isolated operational error at a single respected institution. When a fraud of this magnitude, equivalent to more than a year’s profit for the bank, emerges within one of our most established listed companies, the implications extend well beyond the banking sector. It prompts a necessary and uncomfortable question. Are we truly strengthening the foundations of our economy so that every part of our society can operate with the integrity and confidence that sustainable progress demands?

Banking sits at the heart of any modern economy. It channels savings into investment, supports enterprise, and underpins household security. When even a leading institution reveals weaknesses in internal controls, risk oversight or governance culture, the signal to international observers is difficult to ignore. It suggests that the financial system upon which growth depends may not yet possess the resilience we aspire to project. If institutions that have undergone significant reform since 2022 can still experience such failures, what assurance can investors reasonably expect in other sectors of our economy? At a time when Sri Lanka needs to demonstrate strength and reliability, perceptions of fragility carry a heavy cost.

This matters profoundly because a genuine window of opportunity is now opening. Geopolitical shifts in the Middle East and beyond are prompting global investors and entrepreneurs to seek stable, well governed destinations for capital and talent. Sri Lanka possesses distinct advantages. Our geographical position offers natural connectivity. We have invested in critical infrastructure, including two major ports, international airports and strategic energy reserves. In an era where businesses prioritise rule of law, institutional predictability and sound fundamentals, our potential alignment with these criteria is significant. However, high profile governance failures at this precise moment risk undermining that narrative before it can gain meaningful traction.

The stakes are equally significant for initiatives such as the Port City Colombo. With substantial projects now approved, foreign investment commitments secured and early construction underway, this endeavour is moving from concept to delivery. Yet persistent concerns about governance standards in our established companies can act as a drag on investor sentiment. The confidence required to attract high value international tenants and long- term capital depends not only on physical infrastructure but on the perceived strength of our institutions and the consistency of our regulatory environment.

For decades, Sri Lanka has experienced growth averaging around four to five per cent per year. While this is not insignificant, it falls short of our potential, particularly when measured against the progress of our regional neighbours. India, for example, has sustained growth at roughly twice our rate for more than twenty years, driven by consistent policy execution and strengthening institutional credibility. Our own trajectory has been held back not by a lack of ideas or ambition, but by recurring shortcomings in how our major institutions are governed and held to account. The result is a cycle of unrealised potential, where promising openings are not fully converted into lasting advancement.

The current situation, though challenging, can serve as a catalyst for meaningful change. Boards of listed companies must move beyond procedural compliance to foster a genuine culture of ethical leadership, proactive risk management and zero tolerance for control failures. Regulators have an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of fraud prevention frameworks, whistle-blower protections and monitoring standards across the financial sector, with lessons applied to other key industries. Greater transparency in reporting material incidents and more timely forensic follow through will help rebuild trust with both domestic and international stakeholders.

Crucially, the government must tread carefully as it responds. Short term fixes or reactive measures may address immediate concerns but will not deliver the enduring stability that investors seek. What is required is a coherent long-term strategy that balances the imperative for rapid economic development with the equally vital need to conserve our natural environment and strengthen regional cooperation. Our neighbours in South Asia and Southeast Asia offer not only markets for trade and investment but also partners in shared challenges such as climate resilience, sustainable infrastructure and digital connectivity. By deepening these relationships through practical collaboration, Sri Lanka can position itself as a reliable and forward-looking partner in a dynamic region.

Sri Lanka stands at a pivotal moment. Global realignments are creating rare opportunities for capital inflows, technology transfer and new economic partnerships. Yet these opportunities will flow most readily to nations that demonstrate they can protect investor interests, uphold the rule of law and operate with predictability and transparency. If we allow governance weaknesses in our flagship institutions to persist, we risk once again watching potential pass us by.

This is a defining moment, and our response must be equally purposeful. We can treat the recent events as an unfortunate but isolated incident and return to established patterns. Or we can seize this moment as a timely reminder to strengthen every pillar of our economy, with particular attention to environmental stewardship and regional collaboration. Only by getting our house in order, with patience, consistency and a clear-eyed commitment to long term goals, can we convert today’s challenges into tomorrow’s competitive advantage. The path to sustained prosperity demands nothing less.

by Professor Chanaka Jayawardhena
Professor of Marketing
University of Surrey
Chanaka.j@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Trending