Connect with us

Features

Protection of Occupants Bill: Good, Bad and Ugly

Published

on

I.Protection of Occupants Bill: The government has introduced two Bills, namely, the Rent (Repeal) Bill and the Protection of Occupants Bill which – if enacted – will have the effect of radically reforming the rent laws of our country. These two Bills were gazetted in September 2025 and tabled in Parliament on 20th January, 2026. Although several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of these Bills, the Attorney-General informed the court that the two Bills would not be proceeded with in their present form, but would, instead, be referred to an expert committee for consideration. Accordingly, the petitions were withdrawn and the Supreme Court informed the Speaker that no formal determination would be made on the constitutionality of the said Bills in their present form. In parallel to these legal developments, the Ministry of Justice and National Integration has requested the members of the public to submit their comments, suggestions, or proposals regarding these Bills by 04th March, 2026. The Minister of Justice has also assured that he would not take any steps in relation to the two Bills until this consultative process is completed. Therefore, a clear need and opportunity has arisen for a vibrant public discussion on the proposed legislation. The purpose of this lecture is to contribute to this discussion by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the two Bills in light of their historical, political, social and economic context.

II. The Rent Act and its objective

The Rent Act No. 7 of 1972 is a landmark piece of legislation which was introduced by Mr. Pieter Keuneman, the Minster of Housing at the time. The purpose of the Act was to confer significant protection on tenants through means such as restricting the increase of rent, giving security of tenure for the tenant and formalising the process of ejectment. The Rent Act of 1972 was a bold response to the lived realities of law in society. From a doctrinal perspective, the formation of a valid contract requires animus contrahendi (the intention to enter into a contract). However, it is widely acknowledged that parties to a contact may not be equal in terms of bargaining strength. One party may be stronger than the other, both economically and socially. In such situations, the function of the law is to protect the weaker party in his dealings with the stronger party. The assumption underlying the Rent Act was that the landlord was in a far stronger position than the tenant. Thus, the law was utilised to protect the interests of the more vulnerable party, namely the tenant. This objective of the Rent Act also closely aligned with the personal philosophy of Mr. Keuneman who was a prominent member of the Communist Party, of Sri Lanka. While the Rent Act was subsequently amended in 1976, 1977, 1980 and 2002, the original legislative scheme which safeguarded the rights of the tenants remained intact. What is proposed under the Protection of Occupants Bill, however, is a fundamental departure from the premises of that law.

III. Protection of Occupants Bill: An Overview

A close comparison between the Rent Act and the Protection of Occupants Bill shows that the safeguards afforded to the occupants under the latter (Clauses 3 (a), (b) and 4) are almost identical to the provisions of the former (Sections 13(1), 15 and 16). They both prevent the landlord from discontinuing or withholding the amenities previously provided to the tenant; damaging the premises to induce or compel the tenant to vacate the premises; and refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition. Yet, there is one crucial difference between the Rent Act and the Protection of Occupants Bill in relation to these safeguards. The rights and privileges enjoyed by a tenant under the Rent Act are not absolute. The tenant is being protected by the law only so long as he is complying with the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The 1972 Act, therefore, operates on the assumption that a tenant is honouring his contractual obligations while enjoying the rights under the Act. The conditional nature of these safeguards is amply evident from the provisions of the Act.

For example, section 15 of the Rent Act prevents the landlord from discontinuing amenities provided to the tenant ‘without reasonable cause’. Thus, the landlord is not prevented from discontinuing the amenities at all times but only without reasonable cause. The breach of the contractual obligations by the tenant would surely constitute a reasonable cause for the landlord to discontinue the amenities provided by him to the tenant. By contrast, the language used in the Protection of Occupants Bill does not indicate any limitations on the exercise of the safeguards afforded by the Bill except the preliminary requirement under clause 2 that undisturbed and uninterrupted occupation for three months is necessary for the application of the Bill. In other words, any person who has been in lawful occupation of premises for three months acquires an accrued right to enjoy the safeguards mentioned in the Bill unless he is stopped from doing so by a court order.

Consequently, even if the tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant may have come to an end or the tenant may be in breach of the terms of the agreement, or he is using the premises for a completely different purpose, his rights and privileges remain unaffected. Recourse to the judicial process is the only avenue available for the landlord to revoke the safeguards given to the tenant even when the latter has blatantly breached the terms of his contract. Reciprocity and mutuality are the fundamental concepts that underlie the Rent Act, as the tenant’s protection under that Act is dependent on the reciprocity of obligations. Protection of Occupants Bill, on the other hand, provides a unilateral framework for the tenants to assert their rights without paying due regard to the interests of the landlord.

It is also important to mention, at this point, that the Protection of Occupants Bill makes an artificial and unjustifiable difference between the right of a tenant not to be ejected and the other safeguards provided to him under the Bill. In terms of clause 5, the landlord shall not eject an occupant in contravention of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, or tenancy agreement. The necessary implication of this clause is that the landlord can eject an occupant in terms of the agreement between him and the tenant. Such a caveat is absent in the other provisions of the Bill that deal with the rights of an occupant.

Accordingly, there is a blanket prohibition on the landlord in discontinuing or withholding the amenities previously provided to the occupant or refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition. The landlord cannot take these actions even as per the agreement to which the tenant himself has given his consent. Apart from the absence of a rational basis to require the landlord to follow the tenancy agreement in ejecting a tenant but then to prevent him from doing the same with regard to the other less severe actions that he can resort to when the tenant is in breach of the contract, such a distinction also creates unfairness and inequality. Ejection of a tenant requires manpower and therefore, monetary resources as well. While a landlord who is capable of affording personnel to eject his tenant is benefited under the Bill, a landlord with modest means is left with no options other than a lengthy and cumbersome judicial process even when it is abundantly clear that his tenant is in violation of the tenancy agreement.

IV. Internal Inconsistencies in the Bill

The Protection of Occupants Bill is also poorly drafted and, thus, contains several internal inconsistencies. For example, clause 2 of the Bill provides that a person must be ‘in lawful occupation of a premises’ for him to invoke the provisions of the Bill. The term ‘occupation’ is defined in clause 13 which states that a person can be in occupation of a premises only ‘with the consent of the landlord.’ If a landlord has taken the actions mentioned above, such as discontinuing the amenities, the ‘aggrieved occupant’ is entitled to institute an action in a Court,

seeking the reliefs specified in that clause. Paradoxically, however, when a person goes to the Court to institute such actions, he is no longer ‘an occupant’ because all the eventualities against which a court order can be obtained, such as discontinuing amenities, refusing to maintain the premises, damaging the property, or ejecting the occupant, give an unmistakable indication that the person affected does not have the consent of the landlord to stay in the premises anymore. The withdrawal of the landlord’s consent is the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the aforementioned actions or omissions. Therefore, according to the definition of ‘occupation’ in clause 13, no person, who has faced the resistance of the landlord in the manner described in the Bill, can institute an action before the Court as he is no longer an ‘occupant’ with the landlord’s consent to stay in the premises.

V. A flawed rationale?

In addition to these structural flaws in the Protection of Occupants Bill, the rationale behind the same can also be questioned. It seems that the aim of the Bill is to bridge the gap between Haves and Have nots. It is assumed that the tenant is weaker than the landlord, both economically and socially. Thus, the Bill seeks to protect the rights of the weaker party i.e. the tenant from the arbitrary actions of the landlord. This is an extension of the political philosophy that influenced Mr. Keuneman to introduce the Rent Act. However, due to the unqualified protection given to the tenant, under the proposed new law, there is a serious question as to whether this political philosophy can truly be realised if the Bill is to be enacted in its present form. Suppose that there is a government servant who wants to build a house for his daughter. He may not be rich but manages to buy a land and build a house for his daughter with his salary. He may also want to rent the house until the daughter is married and collect the rent for his daughter’s marriage.

If the tenant, who lives in this house, stops paying the rent and also refuses to leave the property, there is nothing that this government servant can do except seeking a court order to eject him by spending more money and engaging in a lengthy trial that may take years to reach a final determination on the matter. He, of course, does not have the manpower to eject the tenant, but the Bill prevents him from engaging in unharmful actions, such as discontinuing amenities or refusing to maintain the premises, as well. He cannot collect the rent nor can he give the property to his daughter. In such a situation, the landlord becomes the victim as the Protection of Occupants Bill enables the tenant to abuse his rights. The theory of haves and have nots, which is supposed to be promoted by the Bill, breaks down at this point. The assumption that the have nots will be protected by this Act when they are pitted against the haves is simply not borne out when the provisions of the Bill are subject to pragmatic considerations of this kind.

VI. Impact on Banks

The Protection of Occupants Bill will also have a negative impact on the banking system of our country. Landlords often put their houses up as collateral for bank loans. Under the Recovery of loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act No. 4 of 1990, the bank is empowered to sell such property at a public auction if the landlord fails to pay the money back to the bank, with the stipulated interest. It will be extremely difficult for the bank to exercise this right if the Protection of Occupants Bill is enacted without any amendments. Under the provisions of the Bill, a tenant may refuse to leave the premise, despite the breach of his contractual obligations. The bank then cannot sell the property with a tenant as it lacks vacua possessio (vacant possession). In any event, no person will buy a house with a tenant, specially when he knows that the presence of the tenant cannot be resisted under the proposed law. Thus, the bank loses its money due to its inability to sell the collateral and by extension, the members of the public, who deposited their money in the bank, will also suffer that loss.

VII. Impact on Condominium Property

With the increase of population in the urban areas, condominium property has become a convenient option for people who are looking for housing in major cities like Colombo, Kandy and Galle. Unfortunately, the Protection of Occupants Bill is bound to have a detrimental impact on at least three parties in a condominium. First, if the tenant of an apartment in the condominium does not pay his rent, the landlord, who owns the condominium, and expects to earn a certain profit from it, is undoubtedly affected. If a considerable number of tenants refuse to pay the rent, it will be difficult for the landlord to continue with his business. Second, in every condominium complex, there is a management committee which looks after the amenities and other facilities given to the apartments in that complex. However, if a tenant breaches the terms of his contract, the managers will be in a precarious position where they are compelled, under the proposed law, to provide those facilities to someone who has not honoured his contractual obligations towards to the maintenance of the condominium. Finally, the other residents in the condominium complex will be subject to grave injustice as there is a tenant who is immune from any deterrence for the breach of his contract while they continue to pay the rent and fulfil other obligations. Therefore, the condominium industry will severely be affected in multiple ways if the Protection of Occupants Bill is enacted in its current form.

VIII. Judicial process

The proponents of the Bill argue that the aim of the Bill is simply to formalise the actions that can be taken by the landlord when the tenant is in breach of the terms of his contract. It is, therefore, pointed out that if a tenant goes to the Court against the actions of the landlord, such as discontinuing the amenities or refusing to maintain the premises in proper condition, the latter can justify his actions by referring to the breach of the tenancy agreement. In fact, clause 7 (4) lays down time limits for the completion of cases that arise under the proposed legislation. In an uncontested case, the Court is required to deliver the final judgment within 3 months and if the claims of the occupant are contested by the landlord, 9 months are given for the completion of the case. What these provisions seem to have overlooked is the backlog of cases in District Courts which will be dealing with such cases if the Bill is enacted. It is highly doubtful whether these time limits can be adhered to by the District Courts in the midst of other civil actions, such as testamentary cases, divorce cases and property disputes which occupy a significant portion of the Courts’ daily schedule. In any event, a person aggrieved by an order of the court can appeal and no time limits have been prescribed for the appeal process. Most importantly, under clause 6(2), an occupant can obtain interim relief to maintain the status quo of the premises. The effect of this provision is that even an occupant, who is in breach of his contract, can obtain an interim order to maintain the status quo and thereby prevent the landlord from enforcing the contract until the completion of the case. It is convenient for the lawmakers to lay down time limits for cases in a statute but as the previous experiences have shown, the implementation of such limits, in practice, is exceedingly difficult.

IX. Social Impact

The Protection of Occupants Bill is likely to have a catastrophic impact on the social fabric of our country. With all the above hazards discussed above, nobody will buy a house and rent it out anymore. Renting a house, under the proposed legislation, will become a considerable risk which only very few people will be prepared to take. Consequently, there will be a drastic reduction of the housing stock and the number of houses and apartments available will fall drastically. In response, there will be an inevitable rise in rent values. The objective of the Bill to protect the rights of the tenants is most certainly commendable. However, the function of the law is to balance competing interests in society without conferring undue advantage or disadvantage on a particular social group. As former Dean of the Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, has argued, making of law is an exercise in social engineering. Law must balance different interests in society and come up with an equitable solution. However, the proposed legislation leads to unfairness towards landlords, banks, dispositors and several parties in condominiums. From all these perspectives, impact of the proposed legislation is negative. The cumulative effect of all these consequences makes the Protection of Occupants Bill a counter-productive law which fails to achieve its purpose. Therefore, significant amendments are required before the proposed Bill is enacted into law.

Guest lecture delivered in the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo,
by Emeritus Professor G. L. Peiris
on 16 February, 2026



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Why spill water and reject sunlight while burning imported fuel?

Published

on

Sri Lanka needs a fairer and more transparent approach to renewable energy

by K R Pushparanjan

Sri Lanka has spent several decades encouraging private investment in renewable energy. Small hydropower was among the earliest successes of this policy while rooftop solar has more recently enabled thousands of ordinary households and businesses to become electricity producers. These developments have reduced the country’s dependence on imported fuel, mobilised private capital for electricity generation and contributed towards a cleaner and more diversified energy system.

It is therefore difficult to reconcile these objectives with reports that renewable generators are increasingly being required to curtail production during periods of low electricity demand, particularly on Sundays, Poya days and other holidays. The question is especially relevant to run-of-river mini-hydropower, where naturally available water may simply pass downstream when generation is stopped, and to rooftop solar, where abundant midday sunshine cannot be postponed until the evening peak.

There are, of course, legitimate technical reasons why the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), as system operator, may occasionally have to curtail renewable generation. An electricity system must maintain a continuous balance between generation and consumption. On Sundays and holidays, industrial and commercial demand can fall considerably while solar, hydro and wind generation remain available. Certain conventional generating units may sometimes have to remain connected to provide frequency control, voltage support, operating reserves and other services essential for grid stability. Transmission constraints can also make it impossible to substitute generation in one part of the country directly for generation elsewhere.

No responsible renewable-energy producer would suggest that grid security should be compromised merely to accept every available unit of renewable electricity. However, legitimate engineering considerations should not become a blanket explanation that places curtailment decisions beyond public scrutiny.

The CEB itself describes the economic principle underlying electricity dispatch as merit-order dispatch, under which lower-cost generation is normally utilised before progressively more expensive generation. Consequently, whenever inexpensive renewable electricity is deliberately curtailed while substantially more expensive oil-fired generation continues, electricity consumers and renewable producers are entitled to ask why. If a particular thermal generating unit must remain online for frequency stability, voltage support, network security or some other technical requirement, that can be explained. If transmission congestion requires renewable generation in a particular area to be reduced, that too can be demonstrated. Transparency should strengthen technically sound decisions, not threaten them.

Mini-hydro and an unequal contractual relationship

Run-of-river mini-hydropower deserves particular consideration. Unlike reservoir hydro, most such plants have limited ability to store water. When sufficient water is available, but the plant is instructed not to generate, that water may simply bypass the turbines and continue downstream. The opportunity to produce that electricity is then lost. No imported diesel, furnace oil or coal is required to allow that water to turn a turbine, and there is no corresponding fuel-related foreign-exchange expenditure.

Sri Lanka’s mini-hydropower industry was developed largely through private investment. The CEB currently records 219 commissioned mini-hydro projects with an aggregate capacity of approximately 430 MW and acknowledges the role of government policy in encouraging private-sector development of this indigenous renewable resource.

Yet, there has always been a fundamental imbalance in the commercial relationship between the small power producer and the national purchaser. Mini-hydro projects have historically sold their electricity through the Standardised Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA). The very nature of a standardised agreement substantially limits the individual developer’s negotiating position. Published material concerning Sri Lanka’s small-power-producer framework has described the SPPA as standardized and non-negotiable.

This is hardly a negotiation between parties of equal bargaining strength. A mini-hydro developer cannot realistically reject an unfavorable provision and offer the electricity to another national grid. For much of the industry’s history there has effectively been one purchaser, leaving the developer with little practical alternative but to accept the terms offered.

The weakness of that position becomes particularly evident when curtailment occurs. A PUCSL-commissioned study has recorded that under the original SPPA there was no penalty on the CEB for not purchasing energy. The developer may have invested the capital, borrowed the money, undertaken the construction and hydrological risks, maintained the machinery and had both water and generating equipment available, yet still carry the financial loss when electricity cannot be accepted for reasons originating within the national system.

If curtailment is genuinely necessary for grid security, the plant operator may have to accept the technical instruction. It does not logically follow, however, that the entire financial consequence should automatically be imposed upon the weaker contracting party.

Germany curtails renewables too – but differently

Germany provides a useful comparison precisely because it demonstrates that renewable curtailment is sometimes unavoidable even in an advanced electricity system. With very large quantities of wind and solar generation, Germany regularly experiences transmission congestion and occasions when all available renewable electricity cannot immediately be transported to consumers.

The important difference lies in how the problem is managed. Germany operates a regulated redispatch system. European electricity-market rules require redispatch to be undertaken according to objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. Conventional generation, renewable generation and storage can all form part of the process, with interventions determined by what is required to relieve network constraints safely and economically.

Equally important is the recognition that curtailment has financial consequences. Germany’s Federal Network Agency explains that affected generators and storage operators have statutory entitlements to appropriate financial compensation within the redispatch framework. Depending upon the circumstances, relevant arrangements can take account of generation expenditure, lost revenue opportunities, readiness costs, maintenance implications and costs avoided because generation was reduced. The German framework also provides balancing mechanisms intended to address the commercial position of installations affected by redispatch, including renewable generators.

The principle is worth considering in Sri Lanka. When a privately financed generator is required to sacrifice otherwise available production for the security and benefit of the national electricity system, why should that cost automatically and entirely be borne by the generator?

Germany offers another lesson that may be even more important: transparency. Through the Federal Network Agency and its SMARD electricity-market information platform, information on congestion management, renewable curtailment and conventional redispatch is publicly available. Official German figures show that renewable curtailment amounted to approximately 3.5 percent of renewable generation in 2025, meaning that more than 96 percent of renewable electricity generated reached the system and consumers.

Sri Lanka cannot simply copy Germany. The two electricity systems differ enormously in size, resources, interconnections and market structure. What can be adopted, however, are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, accountability and fair treatment of generators affected by decisions taken for the benefit of the wider system.

What generation remained online?

Whenever significant renewable curtailment occurs in Sri Lanka, sufficient information should therefore be made publicly available to answer some straightforward questions. How many megawatts were curtailed, for how many hours, and how many megawatt-hours of renewable electricity were consequently lost? Which thermal generating units remained operational during those hours? What fuel were they using and what was their approximate generation cost? Why was each of those units technically required to remain online? Was the curtailment caused by system-wide oversupply, a local transmission constraint, frequency considerations or some other identifiable requirement? These are not unreasonable questions. If the decisions are technically and economically sound, the answers should vindicate the system operator.

The issue assumes particular importance because Sri Lanka has historically spent enormous sums purchasing thermal electricity. An Auditor General’s special audit concerning ACE Power Embilipitiya reported expenditure of approximately Rs. 59.454 billion on electricity purchased from that plant between 2016 and 2021. The audit also drew attention to transmission-system problems and the consequences of permanent solutions not being implemented in a timely manner.

This does not establish that thermal generation is unnecessary or that private thermal producers have acted improperly. Nor should allegations of corruption be made against particular parties without evidence. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka’s long history of public concern regarding procurement, governance and major public expenditure makes transparency particularly important. Large thermal power contracts, fuel purchases and capacity arrangements involve substantial sums of money. The best protection against suspicion is not secrecy but disclosure.

If expensive thermal generation genuinely has to remain online while inexpensive renewable generation is curtailed, publish the technical reason. Publish the quantities. Publish the relevant costs. Allow engineers, economists, regulators, investors and electricity consumers to examine the decision for themselves.

Rooftop solar must not become the next casualty

The same argument now applies to rooftop solar. Sri Lanka successfully encouraged households and businesses to invest their own money in solar installations. Net Metering, Net Accounting and related arrangements helped transform consumers into small-scale electricity producers and contributed substantially to the growth of distributed renewable energy. PUCSL continues to recognise Net Metering, Net Accounting and Net Plus within Sri Lanka’s rooftop-solar framework.

The rapid expansion of rooftop solar undoubtedly creates genuine technical difficulties. Solar production is concentrated around daytime hours, while Sri Lanka’s major electricity demand peak occurs later. On a sunny Sunday or holiday, solar production can therefore be substantial precisely when commercial and industrial demand is low. Distribution networks designed for one-way electricity flows may also encounter voltage and hosting-capacity limitations as increasing quantities of electricity flow back from consumers towards the grid.

But it would be fundamentally unfair to encourage citizens to invest their savings in solar energy and subsequently treat their electricity as a problem simply because the national grid has not developed quickly enough to accommodate it.

Battery energy storage offers an important part of the eventual solution. A household battery can capture surplus solar energy around midday and release it during the evening, when both the household and the national system need electricity most. PUCSL has already recognized the value of combining rooftop solar with battery storage in its evolving regulatory arrangements.

However, domestic battery storage still represents a considerable additional investment for an ordinary household. Public policy should therefore be careful not to make battery ownership an economic prerequisite for participating in rooftop solar before such systems become reasonably affordable.

Until domestic battery storage becomes economically accessible to the average household, Net Metering and Net Accounting should be preserved, strengthened and made genuinely accessible. They provide a practical bridge between today’s rapidly growing distributed solar generation and tomorrow’s electricity system in which affordable batteries, utility-scale storage, pumped hydro and sophisticated demand management can shift much more renewable energy from periods of surplus to periods of high demand.

The national grid should, during this transition, continue to perform an important balancing function. Meanwhile, policy should encourage rather than compel household batteries through appropriate time-of-use tariffs and incentives. As battery prices decline, consumers will increasingly adopt them voluntarily because the economics make sense.

The grid must evolve with renewable energy

The longer-term answer is therefore not to choose between renewable energy and grid stability. Sri Lanka needs both.

Investment is required in battery storage, pumped-storage hydro, stronger transmission and distribution networks, better renewable forecasting, modern inverter technology, sophisticated system-control facilities and demand-response programmes. Electricity tariffs can also be designed to encourage industries, commercial establishments, water pumping, electric-vehicle charging and other flexible loads to consume more electricity during periods of abundant solar production.

The electricity system must gradually become capable of moving energy not merely geographically but also across time—storing electricity when nature provides more than consumers require and releasing it when demand rises.

This is also essential for maintaining investor confidence. Private investors make renewable-energy decisions according to expected annual generation, financing costs and anticipated revenue. If a developer can spend substantial capital constructing a renewable project only to face unpredictable curtailment outside his control and without adequate compensation or contractual recourse, the investment risk increases. Eventually that risk translates into higher financing costs, higher required returns and fewer projects.

A country cannot credibly invite private investors to finance renewable energy infrastructure while retaining an overwhelmingly one-sided contractual ability to discard their output and transfer the resulting financial loss back to them.

Transparency should not frighten the CEB

Nobody should expect the CEB to compromise national grid security merely to accommodate a mini-hydro plant or rooftop-solar producer. Where curtailment is technically unavoidable, it should occur.

But “system stability” should never become a phrase that ends the discussion.

Where synchronous generation must remain operating, explain why. Where transmission congestion requires renewable curtailment, identify the constraint. Where renewable producers sacrifice available generation for the benefit of the national system, develop a fair compensation mechanism. Where expensive thermal generation remains operational while naturally available water bypasses turbines, disclose why that was the technically necessary and economically preferable decision.

Germany demonstrates that renewable curtailment and renewable-energy development are not contradictory. Even sophisticated electricity systems sometimes have to discard renewable electricity. The difference is that a mature system attempts to minimize curtailment, operates under transparent rules, publishes relevant information and recognizes the financial consequences imposed upon generators.

Sri Lanka should aspire to the same principles.

We should not encourage private investors to build mini-hydropower plants and then place them against the wall through contracts over which they have little negotiating power. We should not encourage households to spend their savings installing solar panels and later make them bear the cost of deficiencies in the electricity network. And we should certainly not discard economically usable indigenous renewable energy without a convincing explanation while scarce foreign exchange is being spent importing fuel.

Sri Lanka should not spill usable water, reject available sunlight and then burn imported fuel to produce electricity that nature was prepared to provide without a fuel bill.

The issue is not whether every unit of renewable electricity can always be accepted. Clearly it cannot. The real test is whether every unit curtailed was genuinely necessary, whether the least-cost and least-wasteful solution was chosen, whether affected producers were treated fairly, and whether the public is permitted to see the evidence.

That is not an unreasonable demand from renewable-energy producers. It is the standard of transparency, accountability and economic discipline that Sri Lanka’s electricity consumers should expect from a modern national power system.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Career of Evil’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense 22

by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I return now to J K Rowling of Harry Potter fame, writing under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith about Cormoran Strike. There are several books in this series of off-beat detective stories, featuring a private investigator who lost a leg while serving in the army, and his assistant Robin Ellacott, who had been raped when a student, with lasting psychological effects. Strike himself was the child of a rock band groupie, who had lived a sordid life, her last attachment being to a failed rock star of relatively aristocratic provenance and brutal habits.

Career of Evil is the third in the Strike series, and markedly different from the two books I read previously, the first and the fifth. Those were relatively speaking classic whodunnits, with a range of possible murderers, the solution in the end being quite unexpected but also convincing. The murderers in both cases are unhinged, but this does not become obvious until Strike has put two and two together and revealed a history of aberrant behaviour.

This novel has just a few suspects, all of them bizarre, as is made clear from the moment they are introduced. The case begins with Robin being sent a severed leg from a dead body, or rather it begins with the thoughts of the murderer who seeks revenge from Strike, which it seems he intends to achieve by first terrifying and then killing the woman he calls Strike’s Secretary. He also evinces a horrid desire to mutilate women after abusing them.

The first person Strike thinks of as a possible suspect is a member of a crime syndicate known to have sent body parts through the post, but Strike soon decides that he cannot be the perpetrator, in part because he is not likely to have known that Strike was responsible for his conviction earlier. Rather Strike is convinced it is one of three people who hate him, two of them individuals he helped to prosecute when he was in the investigating unit of the army, the third his step-father whom he suspected had killed his mother.

Unfortunately, Wardle, the policeman assigned to the case, who gets on well with Strike, is convinced it is the first person Strike had suggested, and does not seem interested in the rest, so Strike sets about trying to find out what they are up to.

They are not easy to trace, but Strike eventually tracks them down. He finds Laing’s mother in Scotland, although she is no longer able to provide any useful information. He then tracks down the mother of Laing’s first wife, Rona, whom Strike had found tied up and tortured. It was this incident that led to Laing’s conviction and imprisonment, and ultimately fuelled his hatred of Strike.

He finds the sister of the second suspect, Noel Brockbank, and learns that she and her brother were both abused as children by their stepfather. Brockbank later went on to abuse young girls himself. When Strike went to arrest him over the abuse of his stepdaughter, Brockbank attacked him with a broken bottle, and Strike knocked him out. Brockbank subsequently suffered seizures and was found to have a serious brain injury. Although Strike was initially blamed for the injury, it was later established that Brockbank had fractured his skull in a rugby match before the confrontation. Brockbank was therefore never convicted of the abuse allegations, while Strike was cleared of responsibility for his brain injury.

Strike’s third suspect is his former stepfather, Jeff Whittaker, whom he describes as unutterably filthy and abusive, yet strangely attractive to women. When Strike tracks him down, he finds Whittaker living with Stephanie, a woman who supports him with what she earns as a sex worker. Despite being abused by Whittaker, she remains devoted to him.

In his musings, the killer refers to the woman he lives with as “It”, suggesting that he could be Whittaker, who lives off Stephanie’s earnings. But when Robin is attacked by a man dressed differently from Whittaker, whom she had seen shortly before, it becomes clear that Whittaker is not the killer. Laing, the first of Strike’s three suspects, is also apparently ruled out when Robin sees him on crutches and learns that he is claiming disability benefits. Strike and Robin therefore concentrate on the third suspect, Noel Brockbank, whom they eventually trace to a home he shares with his girlfriend, Alyssa, and her two young daughters. Robin has seen the younger girl and becomes increasingly worried about what Brockbank might do to her. Although Strike has ordered her to leave Brockbank alone, Robin continues investigating because of her concern for the child. She eventually discovers that Brockbank has been sexually abusing the older of the two girls.

Meanwhile, Strike and Robin manage to identify the girl whose leg was sent to the agency. Among the bizarre letters Strike had received in the past was one from a young woman who fantasizes about having her healthy leg amputated and believed that Strike had deliberately had his own leg removed. Robin realises that the girl was suffering from a condition known as body integrity identity disorder, or BIID, in which a person has a persistent desire to have a healthy limb or other body part removed. Strike simply ignored the letter, unaware that the girl was suffering from a recognised condition and that her request was serious. The girl, Kelsey Platt, is subsequently found to have been murdered, and the police discover forged letters apparently written by Strike in response to her.

Wardle has his suspicions of the man married to the girl’s sister, with whom she had lived. Strike thinks this absurd, and it turns out that the man has an alibi for the time of the murder, but Strike does go along when the sister asks to see him and is overwhelmed by the sense of grief she and her husband evince.

The girl is evidently a godsend to the murderer, whose desire to remove body parts could not be controlled. He chops fingers off a girl he almost kills, and then removes the nose and ears of a girl he kills soon afterwards. And previously he had sent Robin the toe of the girl whose leg had been sent earlier.

All this horror can seem over the top, and one may wonder how Rowling could bring herself to wallow in such grim material. But perhaps she felt very strongly about the abuse women were subject to, and though her depiction of the way women played into the hands of abusive men seems excessive, she feels that awareness of that increases the need for support groups and other mechanisms to provide safety nets.

But there is also another side to the novel, namely the relationship between Strike and his partner Robin, which verges on the romantic though neither wishes to move on the matter. Strike feels diffident about taking advantage of his position as her employer, while Robin is engaged to a young man she has known for years, and whom she was virtually engaged to while at university. He has stood by her after the rape, when she could barely face society, and she finally decides to accept him and they are planning their wedding at the beginning of this book. But she finds that he is jealous of Strike, and hence his resentment of her commitment to her work, she breaks off the relationship when they are staying with her parents to finalize arrangements for the wedding.

But they still share a flat, and given the threat looming over her she cannot really move to live by herself. And gradually his misery wears her determination down, and she agrees again to marry him. The novel ends with their wedding, which Strike just manages to get to, causing her to beam, though she ‘had not once smiled in the entire service’.

But they still share a flat, and with the threat hanging over her, Robin cannot really move out and live by herself. Gradually, Matthew’s misery wears down her determination, and she agrees to marry him after all. The novel ends with their wedding. Strike arrives just in time, battered and bloodied after his confrontation with the killer. Robin has not smiled once during the ceremony, but when she sees Strike, she suddenly beams.

Before that, in the kerfuffle caused by Robin’s attempt to rescue the children of the woman Brockbank was living with, Strike sacks her. This turns out to be useful to him, because he subsequently enlists the children’s mother, Alyssa, to help trap the killer, whom he has by then identified as Donald Laing. With Shanker’s help, Strike arranges for Alyssa to pose as his new secretary and lure Laing into the open while he gains access to the flat Laing has been using as a hideout. There he discovers the evidence of the murders, including the severed body parts kept in a refrigerator.

This leads to a dramatic climax in which the murderer turns up. Strike has difficulty subduing him, partly because of his missing leg, but he is helped by Shanker, a man whom his mother, Leda, had taken in as a neglected and badly beaten boy and who has remained deeply grateful to the family. With the murderer captured and the case effectively wrapped up, Strike asks Shanker to drive him to Yorkshire, where Robin’s wedding is taking place. They arrive while the ceremony is still in progress, and Strike manages to get into the church just as Robin is making her vows. When she sees him, she beams and says “I do” while looking at him rather than at Matthew.

Clearly, this suggests that the relationship between Strike and Robin is far from settled. Indeed, as I discovered when I read the fifth book in the series, the story certainly does run and run.

Continue Reading

Features

Ananda Ganegoda: Pioneer in popularising Sinhala music

Published

on

Ananda Ganegoda

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

It was with a great sense of sadness that I received the news about the death of Ananda Ganegoda at the age of 80 years; the last of the famous industrialist Ganegoda brothers to depart. Ananada was a businessman par excellence but he ought to be remembered specially for his outstanding contribution to popularising Sinhala music by founding the music label Singlanka in 1980. Unfortunately, I lost touch with him, having seen him only once since I left Sri Lanka in May 1988. As I mentioned in my article on statins (Cholesterol lowering statins: Scope for use widens – The Island; 18 September) I have met some remarkable people in my practice of medicine and Ananda was certainly one of them.

The Ganegoda brothers were actually two sets of first cousins though they worked as a single family. Nandajeewa, Sumanalatha, Wimalajeeva, Karunajeewa and Ratnajeeva were the children of Jineris Ganegoda whilst Chandrasiri, Jinadri and Ananda were the children of Jineris’ younger brother Johanis. Sadly, it seems to have been forgotten by many that the Ganegoda brothers were instrumental in changing our export economy by starting garment factories in 1954, one of the first groups of non-traditional exports. According to a family post on Facebook, the visionary leader was Wimalajeewa, who started Noortex, Mayura, GIL and Eurolanka garment factories. Others followed suit and they presided over a vast business empire.

My first contact was not with Ananda but Karunajeeva, if my memory serves me right. After a consultation and a friendly chat, he invited me to a factory visit, which I readily agreed to. He took me to one of the factories in Ratmalana and I was very pleasantly surprised with the high standards maintained in the factory including workers’ welfare. I was able to taste the delicious food served to the workers. The icing on the cake was his measuring me out for shirts and trousers which I wore for a very long time!

Maybe around late 1983 or early ‘84, Ananda ‘channelled’ me for a consultation in the Central Hospital for chest pain and was accompanied by his wife, Nandani. I noted that, in addition to the cigarette smell, he had heavy nicotine staining of fingers. After having ensured that his pain was not cardiac, I tore into him stating, “What is wrong with you? You are among the Sri Lankan businessman doing well and you seem determined to commit suicide with chain smoking,” Then I started wondering whether I had been too blunt, but Ananda said “Dr, Thank you very much. I will stop smoking” and his calm response took me by surprise. On a subsequent social occasion, Nandani whispered in my ear that he had an occasional ‘secret smoke’ and when I encountered, Ananda said “Dr, hari amarui” but promised he would give up completely. I do not know whether he did so but the significant reduction of consumption, hopefully, contributed to his longevity.

I met him last in 1995, in the role of a peacemaker when he was in open conflict with a close relative of mine. I pleaded with him to stop the battle, pointing out that one of his nieces was being courted by the son of my relative. Though shocked, he promised to make peace.

Ananda’s crowning achievement was the founding of Singlanka which made Sinhala songs accessible to the masses. Those of us, old enough to remember, know how difficult it was to listen to music. As a child, I had to go to the village Community Centre to listen to the radio, which is in utter contrast to what is happening today. With just a click on the smartphone anyone can listen to music of any choice, anytime, anywhere as long as you are connected to the internet! Recording with the ability to playback, started with the Phonograph invented by Thomas Edison in 1877, Vinyl records being available from the early twentieth century. They came in various speeds and sizes but needed cumbersome players.

The real breakthrough came in 1963, when the Dutch company Philips introduced the Compact Cassette with more convenient players. Singlanka gave everyone the opportunity to listen to their favourite artists on Compact Cassettes. When the Compact Disc format, developed jointly by Philips and Sony, released in 1983, gathered momentum, Singlanka too moved to this format but most of us are still in possession of Singlanka cassettes. I still occasionally listen to Nanda Malini’s “Pavana”, which has become relevant because of the recent death of Nanda Malini and the ascent of JVP to power, but that is another story.

Most of our famous singers, including the greats like Amaradeva and Nanda Malini, owe at least a significant part of their fame and fortune to Singlanka, which was Ananda’s brainchild. Looking at the discography of Singlanka is like looking at a list of all favourite singers. In addition, Ananda gave the opportunity to the less known in the field of music also to showcase their talent, the best example being Carlo Fonseka’s Calochita Gee, which was a compilation of songs sung by various artists to the lyrics and melodies of Carlo. Who would have imagined multi-talented Carlo having musical creativity as well!

As for me, one event illustrated his generosity and his sense of gratitude. When Dr N J Wallooppillai retired, and I succeeded him as Cardiologist, I arranged for an international conference “Cardiology Update”, which was held on 6th and 7th of June 1985 at Galadari Meridien Hotel, culminating in a banquet. When I rang Ananda about this, he immediately offered to sponsor music for the evening and arranged for Patrick Denipitiya Combo to play and Ivor Dennis, Indrani and Sisira Senaratna to sing. It was a memorable evening, with plaudits from attendees, though we did not have an opportunity to rehearse. I compeered and we selected the songs as we went on. When Indrani wanted to sing Gaya Geethayan I had to stop as it was a Hindi tune and Indians were in the audience! My wife Primrose joined Ivor Dennis to duet “Olu Pipila Wela Lela Denawa”. We ended the banquet with Ivor Dennis singing, and the audience joining, the patriotic song Dakuna, Negenahira, Batahira, Uturada, Eka Kodiye Sevene thanks to Ananda. I am eternally grateful to him.

May Ananda attain the Supreme Bliss of Nibbana!

Continue Reading

Trending