Features

Revisiting presidential system of government

Published

4 years ago

2022/01/7

By Neville Ladduwahetty

The government’s announcement that a new Constitution will be unveiled within the next few months is in keeping with one of the ten key policy commitments in the President’s election manifesto. This announcement has encouraged several prominent constitutional experts to express opinions relating to constitutional reforms, perhaps in the hope of influencing the ongoing constitution making process. However, at the fundamental level, all these opinions for governance boil down to a choice essentially between parliamentary or presidential systems with their favoured variations.

At this fundamental level the choice for “We the People” is whether it is in their best interests to grant their sovereign rights to a single body of elected representatives as in Parliamentary systems, or divide them between two separately elected branches of government as in Presidential systems, notwithstanding the fact that the system in Sri Lanka is not strictly Presidential as in the USA, but one that is Semi-Presidential because of the incorporation of Members of Parliament from the Legislature in the Executive branch.

PARLIAMENTARY v. PRESIDENTIAL

In a Parliamentary system, all power in respect of Legislative and Executive powers are exercised by the elected political party or coalition with the majority to form a functioning government. Under such an arrangement, the opportunity to exercise checks and balances by the Legislature over Executive action becomes blurred despite the fact that the Executive with its Cabinet of Ministers is answerable and responsible to Parliament. Furthermore, while the responsibility for formulating Policy relating to a particular subject is supposed to be that of the Minister and administering that Policy is supposed to be the responsibility of the Administrator, the distinctions between them become seamless because administrative decisions involve policy. This blurring of responsibilities gives the Minister the opportunity to involve himself in the Administration causing administrative action to be influenced by politics.

Addressing this issue that is inherent with Cabinet systems, Sir. Ivor Jennings in his book titled “THE CONSTITUTION OF CEYLON” (1949) states: “The Cabinet system implies a division between policy and administration. Administration is the function of paid officials; policy is the function of responsible Ministers. The line between them is often fine, because many administrative decisions involve policy. It is the duty of the official to put before the Minister every decision about which there may be any doubt in terms of policy; but it is equally the duty of the Minister to abstain from interfering where no question of policy is raised” (p. 87).

Such idyllic arrangements do not exist in real life. This is particularly so, as presently in Sri Lanka when Secretaries to Ministries responsible for Administration are appointed by the President with no reference to the Minister. Therefore, whatever the system, since the performance of Ministries and ultimately the Government depends on the symbiotic relationship between the Minister and the Secretary, it is imperative that the Secretary should be appointed by the appointing authority in consultation with the Minister so that they could work as a team to further the agenda of the Government. Problems associated with this relationship have been the primary cause for poor Executive performance

On the other hand, in a presidential system, Legislative and Executive power of the people are exercised by two separately elected bodies. Thus, for all intents and purposes, there is separation of power between these two branches of government. While this is so in countries such as the USA, where the two branches function and operate separately, it is not so in the Sri Lankan context of the presidential arrangement because the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers that form an integral component of the President’s Executive are from Parliament.

Such arrangements are referred to as Semi-Presidential. Under such systems too, the blurring of Policy and Administration that exist under Parliamentary arrangements with Cabinet systems continue. Therefore, there is an urgent need to revisit existing arrangements to ensure that arrangements are instituted for the development of Policy and its Administration in a manner that enables the President and the Executive to fulfill their commitments to the People.

REVISITING CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS

As long as the Cabinet system exists as part of the Executive, the difference between the Parliamentary systems that had existed in Sri Lanka e.g., 1972 Constitution, and what exists currently under a Semi-Presidential system, is marginal. For instance, under the 1972 Parliamentary system a nominated President appointed the members of the Cabinet of Ministers presumably on the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the elected President under the current Semi-Presidential system appoints the Cabinet of Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. As before, the Cabinet of Ministers is “charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic. However, since the People expect the President they elect to exercise their executive power including the defence of Sri Lanka, it is the President as the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers who should be selecting his chosen Ministers of the Cabinet. Furthermore, since it is the President who made certain commitments to the People in his Manifesto, the direction and control of the Government should reflect what he undertook to deliver to the People. The Cabinet of Ministers thus become the President’s team to fulfill his commitments to the People. This perspective should be reflected in the revisited arrangements

The direction and control of the government thus becomes the collective responsibility of the President and his chosen Cabinet. The responsibility of each Minister should then be to develop the Policies relating to the subjects assigned to him as part of the collective responsibility of the Executive. In the development of Policies relating to the assigned subjects, the Minister should be free to engage with anyone who in his opinion could contribute to the process. A draft Policy Paper that would be the outcome of such an exercise should be submitted to the Cabinet for review, comment and approval.

This should be followed by the Secretary to the Ministry as the Chair to determine how to administer the Cabinet approved draft of the Policy. The total package of Policies and Administrative measures should then be submitted to the Cabinet for review and comment so that any amendments could be incorporated into the final policy statement, which them becomes a collective decision of the Cabinet. The lack of attention given to the process of administering Policies is often the cause for failed Policies.

For instance, the Policy of the current Government was to use organic fertilizer and to ban imported chemical fertilizer and pesticides. Under the revisited arrangements, the Minister of Agriculture together with a team selected by the Minister would develop the Policies needed to implement the Policy of using organic fertilizer. The policies so determined would then be submitted by the Minister to the Cabinet for review, comment and approval. Having secured preliminary approval of the Policies, a working group headed by the Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture should develop the Administrative measures needed to implement the Policies. If at this stage, serious challenges are imposed due to non-availability of material and/or resources to administer the Policy, the administrative process should be revised, or the Policy should be revised to suit capacities. Since such a decision would have far reaching political consequences the decision whether to phase out or forge ahead should be taken collectively by the Cabinet.

If the collective decision is to implement the Policy in stages, the Secretary should develop the administrative arrangements to ensure that the Policy is successfully implemented. On the other hand, if the collective decision of the Cabinet is not to phase out implementing the Policy, it is the responsibility of the Secretary to develop strategies needed to implement the Policy. The total package of Policy and the administrative arrangements needed to implement the Policy should then be submitted to the Cabinet for approval.

The approach suggested above is in keeping with the concept of the Cabinet being collectively responsible for the direction and control of the Government. The revisited approach may appear too complicated. However, the reason why good Policies have failed to meet expectations is because of poor planning and lack of due attention to effective administration. The fact remains that if what is proposed is too cumbersome some alternative has to be developed to ensure that collective decisions are reached, as long as the Cabinet systems remain as part and parcel of the Executive.

RESPONSIBILITIES of PARLIAMENT

The primary responsibility of Parliament is to exercise the Legislative power of the People. Equally important is for Parliament to oversee executive action. In this regard, Articles 42 and 43 (1) of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution state: 42. The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating topublic security.43. (1) There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic, which shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.

Apart from the question of how a President directly elected by the People could be responsible to another organ of Government – the Parliament, also directly elected by the same People, the fact is that the President and the Cabinet of Ministers are collectively responsible to Parliament means that Parliament is Constitutionally entitled to review Executive action. Although the Constitution does not spell out how Parliament is to fulfill this specific responsibility, the Standing Orders of Parliament contain provisions under Sectoral Oversight Committees and Ministerial Consultative Committees that could be modified to serve as a mechanism to oversee Executive action of the President, and the collective and individual actions of the Cabinet and its Ministers. Since the focus of these Committees is to address issues relating to Legislature, they should be revised, expanded and strengthened to oversee Executive action and incorporated in a revisited Constitution.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS

Appointments to Independent Commissions were made by the President on the recommendations of the Constitutional Council under the 19th Amendment and now by the Parliamentary Council under the 20th Amendment. The Constitutional Council consisted of ten members of which seven were from Parliament. The present Parliamentary Council consists of five members and all of them are from Parliament.

The question that arises is how realistic is it to expect Councils made up of either a majority or its entirety from Parliament, to be objective enough in the appointment of Independent Commissions. If the intention is to create an independent and productive Public Service, the arrangements that exist today are a far cry from what were intended, because what Sri Lanka has inexorably and unwittingly ended up is to politicize the Public Service and weaken its motivation for effective administration. The temptation to politicize was in the misguided hope of the political establishment that administering policies with hand-picked officers who would personally be loyal to them would enable them to achieve their objectives. The consequence of this trend was to demoralize the rest to a point of believing that without political patronage there is no future for them in the Public Service. In such a background, complaining about them would not get the political establishment its desired outcomes. Instead, they should realize that it is in their own interest to have an effective Public Service without which their policies would not be implemented. Therefore, it is imperative that the prevailing trend is reversed.

To do so the arrangements instituted to set-up Independent Commissions should be scrapped, and the existing Presidential Council should focus on setting up an effective Public Service Commission vested with executive powers of appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control, dismissal of public officers including addressing of grievances of the public. The fact that the 20th Amendment has deleted The Audit Service Commission and The National Procurement Commissions that had existed in the 19th Amendment, attest to the fact that the functions of these Commissions could be transferred to the Public Service Commission. A further development is that the Police Commission only handles public grievances. The rest of the functions of the Police Department have already been transferred to the Public Service Commission. In keeping with this trend, other Commissions too should be scrapped except for the Human Rights and Judicial Commissions. An effective Public Service Commission means that even the role of the Ombudsman becomes superfluous, because it should be possible for the Commission with expanded executive power to address grievances of the Public more effectively, since grievances of the public are invariably due to dereliction of duties of public servants.

CONCLUSION

The need for a new Constitution is based on the premise that the Constitution in its present form is a fetter to the progress and development of Sri Lanka. How valid is this perception? The material presented above, if viewed objectively, demonstrates that the real impediment to progress and development is the form and manner in which the Constitution operates.

The Constitution in its present form is not a true Presidential system that is based on the separation of power as in the United States. Instead, it is a Semi-Presidential system because of the inclusion of members of Parliament in the Executive Branch as members of the Cabinet. What is proposed herein is to retain the existing structure for practical reasons, but amend the form and manner in which it functions so that predetermined Executive Policies could be effectively administered.

This approach is predicated on the premise that the reason for poor performance is because of the mismatch between Policy and Administration. A match between the two could be initiated by formulating fresh procedures and revisiting existing constitutional provision through amendments, instead of a new Constitution.

Another concern of major importance is the lack of Constitutional provisions to address Executive performance despite the fact that constitutionally the President and the Cabinet are collectively responsible to Parliament. What is recommended is to use existing provisions under Standing Orders relating to Sectoral Oversight Committees and Ministerial Consultative Committees, and adapt them to address Executive action as a constitutional imperative.

Finally, the concept of Independent Commissions whose origins could be traced to the Youth Commission, have not served their intended purpose, primarily because appointments to these Commissions by a Presidential Commission consisting of Members of Parliament have a political bias. What is proposed instead, is to scrap them and transfer all functions that were handled by Individual Departments to a seriously empowered Public Service Commission with sufficient executive powers to address grievances of the Public as well. This means that even the role of Ombudsman becomes superfluous.

The political establishment as a whole is dissatisfied with the public servants and the services they offer. The primary reason for this belief is that without political patronage their future advancement is bleak. If this perception is to change for the sake of an efficient and committed public service, the political establishment has to give up the practice of using hand-picked favourites for key positions at the expense of more senior and experienced members of the service. The independence of a Public Service Commission becomes their shield. The irony is that the success of a Minister’s performance depends on the commitment of the public servant, and if the Minister is to garner the full commitment of the public servant, he cannot afford to treat some as being more equal than others.

All News Advertisement

Features

Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart

Published

5 hours ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

A file photo of Buddhist monks engaged in a protest

For more than a century, Sri Lankan society has lived with a quiet contradiction at the heart of its religious life. On the one hand, the Buddhist monk is revered as the embodiment of moral discipline, selfrestraint, and renunciation. On the other, the modern monk has become a public figure, political actor, administrator, media personality, and in some cases power broker whose influence extends far beyond the temple. This contradiction has been tolerated, even celebrated, for decades. But recent events, most notably a widely publicised case involving a senior monk accused of grave moral misconduct, have forced the country to confront a painful truth: the institutional conditions that make such scandals possible are not new. They are the predictable outcome of a long historical process that H. L. Seneviratne described with remarkable clarity in The Work of Kings. The moral deterioration visible today is not an aberration. It is the culmination of a centurylong transformation in the identity, function, and authority of the Sangha.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, it is necessary to revisit the argument Seneviratne made nearly three decades ago. His thesis was simple but profound: the modern Sri Lankan monkhood has taken on the ‘work of kings.’ By this he meant that monks, instead of confining themselves to the renunciant life prescribed by the Vinaya, have assumed the secular responsibilities once associated with precolonial kingship, such as protecting the religion, organising society, guiding the nation, and enforcing moral order. This shift, he argued, was not a natural evolution of Buddhist tradition but a modern invention shaped by colonialism, nationalism, and the anxieties of a society struggling to redefine itself in the face of foreign domination. The monk became a symbol of national identity, a guardian of cultural authenticity, and a leader in the struggle for political autonomy. In the process, the boundaries that once separated the monastic from the worldly began to dissolve.

Transformation

The consequences of this transformation were not immediately visible. For decades, the activist monk was celebrated as a patriot, a reformer, and a moral guide. His involvement in education, social welfare, and nationalist mobilisation was seen as a necessary response to colonial pressures and missionary competition. But beneath the surface, the foundations of monastic discipline were slowly eroding. The Vinaya, which had served for centuries as a rigorous framework for regulating monastic life, was increasingly overshadowed by the demands of public engagement. The communal structures that once ensured accountability, senior supervision, collective confession, and the daily rhythms of monastic routine, were weakened by the pressures of modernity. Monks who travelled constantly, managed institutions, or lived independently in urban temples found themselves outside the traditional systems of oversight that had long protected the integrity of the Sangha.

Scandal

It is within this historical context that the recent scandal must be understood. The case shocked the nation not only because of the severity of the allegations but because it shattered the public’s assumption that the monkhood remains a bastion of moral purity. Yet the shock itself reveals a collective denial. For years, Sri Lankan society has been aware, sometimes quietly, sometimes openly—of the growing gap between the ideal of the monk and the realities of modern monastic life. Stories of misconduct, financial irregularities, political manipulation, and abuse of authority have circulated with increasing frequency. But each incident has been treated as an isolated failure, a personal weakness, or an unfortunate exception. What has been missing is recognition that these incidents are symptoms of a deeper structural problem.

Seneviratne’s analysis helps illuminate this problem. When monks take on the work of kings, they inevitably enter domains of power that expose them to temptations the Vinaya was designed to avoid. Handling money, managing institutions, cultivating political patrons, and exercising authority over laypeople create opportunities for ego, ambition, and moral compromise. The monk who becomes a public figure is no longer shielded by the anonymity and humility of the renunciant life. Instead, he becomes a celebrity, a leader, and in some cases an object of uncritical devotion. This elevation brings with it a dangerous form of immunity. Laypeople who revere a monk for his public achievements may hesitate to question his behaviour. Politicians who rely on monastic support may protect him from scrutiny. The media, which often treats monks as moral authorities, may be reluctant to investigate allegations that challenge the sanctity of the robe.

The recent scandal illustrates how these dynamics can converge. The monk at the centre of the case was not an obscure figure. He was a respected preacher, charismatic leader, and head of a prominent institution. His public image was built on years of service, teaching, and community engagement. Yet it was precisely this public stature that allowed him to operate without meaningful oversight. The institutional structures around him, administrators, lay supporters, and junior monks, were either unwilling or unable to challenge his authority. The very qualities that made him a respected figure in the eyes of the public also made him untouchable within his own institution. When allegations finally emerged, they revealed not only personal wrongdoing but a systemic failure of accountability.

Failure that is not unique

This failure is not unique to one temple or one monk. It reflects a broader pattern within the modern Sangha. As monastic institutions have grown in size, wealth, and influence, their internal governance has struggled to keep pace. Many temples operate as semiautonomous entities controlled by a single monk or a small group of monks. Financial transparency is limited, administrative oversight is weak, and the mechanisms for addressing misconduct are often informal or ineffective. The traditional structures of monastic discipline, such as the Sangharama procedures for adjudicating offences, are rarely used in modern contexts, partly because they require collective participation and partly because they are illsuited to the complexities of contemporary institutional life. In practice, this means that monks who wield significant authority can act with little fear of internal sanction.

The politicisation of the Sangha has further complicated matters. Since the midtwentieth century, monks have played an increasingly prominent role in electoral politics, nationalist movements, and public policy debates. This involvement has given them access to political networks that can be mobilised to protect their interests. It has also created a culture in which monks are valued not for their adherence to the Vinaya but for their ability to influence public opinion, mobilise voters, or lend moral legitimacy to political causes. In such an environment, the monk who is politically useful may be shielded from criticism, while the monk who adheres strictly to the renunciant ideal may find himself marginalised or ignored.

The result is a profound distortion of monastic identity. The monk who once sought liberation from worldly attachments is now encouraged to cultivate influence, authority, and public recognition. The monk who once lived under the strict supervision of senior elders now operates in a world where independence is celebrated and oversight is minimal. The monk who once relied on laypeople for basic sustenance now controls vast resources, manages institutions, and commands the loyalty of thousands of followers. This inversion of traditional roles has created a fertile ground for moral deterioration.

Yet it would be a mistake to interpret this deterioration as evidence that the Sangha as a whole is corrupt. Many monks continue to live lives of remarkable discipline, humility, and spiritual dedication. In remote forest monasteries, small village temples, and meditation centres across the country, monks quietly uphold the ancient ideals of the renunciant life. They are not the ones who appear on television, lead political rallies, or manage large institutions. Their work is invisible, their influence subtle, and their commitment unwavering. The crisis facing the Sangha today is not a crisis of individual morality but a crisis of institutional identity. It is the product of a centurylong transformation that has blurred the boundaries between the monastic and the secular, the spiritual and the political, the renunciant and the worldly.

If Sri Lanka is to address this crisis, it must begin by acknowledging the structural nature of the problem. The temptation to treat each scandal as an isolated incident must be resisted. Instead, the country must confront the uncomfortable reality that the modern configuration of monastic life is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the Vinaya. The Sangha cannot simultaneously function as a political force, a social service provider, a media institution, and a spiritual community without compromising its integrity. The more monks are drawn into the world, the more vulnerable they become to the moral dangers that the Buddha warned against.

Reform, therefore, must focus not only on punishing individual offenders but on rethinking the institutional structures that enable misconduct. This includes strengthening internal governance, enhancing financial transparency, restoring the authority of senior elders, and reestablishing the communal practices that once ensured accountability. It also requires a broader cultural shift in how laypeople relate to monks. Blind devotion must give way to informed respect. Reverence must be balanced with responsibility. The robe must be honoured, but it must not be used as a shield against scrutiny.

Seneviratne’s work offers a valuable starting point for this rethinking. His analysis reminds us that the crisis facing the Sangha is not the result of moral decline alone but of historical forces that reshaped the identity of the monkhood. By tracing the evolution of the activist monk, he shows how the Sangha became entangled in the political and social structures of the modern nationstate. This entanglement has brought both benefits and dangers. It has allowed monks to play important roles in education, social welfare, and national development. But it has also exposed them to the corrupting influences of power, wealth, and public acclaim.

The challenge now is to disentangle the Sangha from these influences without undermining its ability to serve society. This will not be easy. The activist monk has become deeply embedded in the cultural and political fabric of the country. Many laypeople expect monks to be leaders, reformers, and guardians of national identity. Politicians rely on monastic support to legitimise their agendas. Media institutions depend on monks for content, commentary, and moral authority. Reversing this trend will require a collective effort from monks, laypeople, and political leaders alike.

Ultimately, the future of the Sangha depends on its ability to reclaim the renunciant ideal that lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism. This does not mean withdrawing from society entirely, but it does mean reestablishing the boundaries that protect the monk from the dangers of worldly involvement. It means recognising that the true strength of the Sangha lies not in its political influence or institutional power but in its moral authority, its spiritual discipline, and its commitment to the path of liberation. The recent scandal, painful as it is, may serve as a catalyst for this reevaluation. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the modern monastic system and forced the country to confront the consequences of a centurylong transformation.

To understand how the Vihara Devalegam Act relates to the perceived moral deformation of the clergy, it is necessary to examine how property management, state law, and monastic discipline intersect in the modern era. Historically stemming from the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance No. 19 of 1931, this act serves as the primary legal framework governing the ‘temporalities’—meaning the secular wealth, extensive landholdings, and material donations belonging to Buddhist temples and shrines. While ancient kings granted these vast tracts of land to support the monkhood’s spiritual pursuits, the modern codification of this law has inadvertently fostered a system where property rights frequently supersede spiritual accountability.

The core of the crisis lies in the commercialisation of the monastic order that this legal framework enables. By treating temple lands as economic assets and vesting absolute administrative power in individual chief monks or lay trustees, the act has contributed to the rise of what critics term a monastic middle class. Access to vast, unregulated financial resources, rent from lands, and corporate donations has fundamentally shifted the focus of certain segments of the clergy away from the traditional path of worldly renunciation and spiritual guidance. Instead, it has driven a preoccupation with business investments, the accumulation of private capital, and luxury lifestyles, which deeply alienates a public looking to the Sangha for moral leadership.

The institutional flaws embedded in the Vihara Devalegam Act find a stark, real-world manifestation in the recent criminal case involving Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero. As the chief priest of Anuradhapura and the custodian of the Atamasthana—the eight highly venerated Buddhist shrines, including the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi—Hemarathana Thero occupied one of the most powerful and wealthy positions within the Sri Lankan Sangha. His arrest on charges of sexual abuse of a minor girl perfectly illustrates how the structural defects of the Act facilitate not only moral decay but also the systemic obstruction of justice.

The core of this intersection lies in the vast, unaccountable wealth generated by the temporalities of the Anuradhapura shrines. Under the Vihara Devalegam Act, the chief custodian exercises immense, virtually unchecked control over temple revenues, state-backed land management, and millions of rupees in daily donations from millions of global pilgrims. It is precisely this immense financial liquidity that enabled the alleged deployment of vast sums of money to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the profound policy failures cited regarding the helplessness of the monastic hierarchy and state enforcement. When child protection authorities initially attempted to act, the National Child Protection Authority noted severe delays and institutional resistance, stating they practically had to force the police to execute the arrest. The monk’s immediate retreat to a private hospital in Colombo upon the advancement of the criminal probe, followed by his release on bail, mirrors the exact loop described where wealthy monastics deploy high-priced legal defence teams funded directly or indirectly by their institutional positions. Because the Vihara Devalegam Act does not provide a mechanism for the immediate, unconditional forfeiture of temporal administrative rights upon a criminal indictment, the accused retains his structural power throughout the legal process. The Pallegama Thero scandal stands as definitive proof that without a fundamental overhaul of how temple wealth is legally governed and disciplined, the material benefits guaranteed by ancient temporalities will continue to shield the worst elements of moral deformation from the rule of law.

If Sri Lanka can learn from this moment and if it can recognise the structural roots of the crisis and commit to meaningful reform, then the Sangha may yet emerge stronger, more disciplined, and more faithful to its ancient ideals. But if the country continues to treat each scandal as an isolated failure and if it continues to ignore the deeper institutional problems that Seneviratne identified, then the moral deterioration we see today will only deepen. The work of kings, when performed by monks, carries a heavy price. It is time to decide whether that price is worth paying.

by Professor Amarasiri de Silva

Features

Kondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary

Published

5 hours ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

The Power and Energy Ministry’s drive towards energy security and renewable energy expansion received a major boost yesterday with the signing of a tripartite cooperation agreement for the development of the 150 MW Kondachchi Wind Power Project and an integrated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Mannar.

The agreement was signed at the Ministry of Power auditorium under the patronage of Power Minister Anura Karunatilaka and Deputy Power Minister Arkam Ilyas.

Speaking at the event, Ministry Secretary G. M. R. D. Aponsu described the project as a transformative investment that would strengthen the country’s electricity network while supporting Sri Lanka’s transition towards cleaner energy sources.

“The Kondachchi Wind Power Project represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy journey. By combining large-scale wind generation with advanced battery energy storage technology, we are creating a more resilient and reliable power system capable of meeting future energy demands while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels,” Aponsu said.

The project will be developed at Silavathurai in the Kondachchi area of Mannar on lands owned by the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation. It is expected to utilise some 31 modern wind turbines with a total installed capacity of at least 150 MW.

Aponsu said the inclusion of an integrated battery storage facility would help address the variability associated with wind power generation and ensure stable electricity supply to the national grid.

“The battery energy storage component is a key feature of this project. It will enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the grid and enhance overall system stability, which is essential as Sri Lanka increases the share of renewables in its energy mix,” he said.

According to the Ministry, the wind farm is expected to generate nearly 525 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually, significantly reducing the country’s expenditure on imported fuel and strengthening national energy security.

The project is also expected to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate commitments by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 372,750 tonnes annually.

“This investment delivers both economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support sustainable development objectives and help Sri Lanka move closer to achieving its renewable energy and climate targets,” Aponsu noted.

The project will be implemented under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement using the Build, Own and Operate (BOO) model. The Asian Development Bank is providing technical and financial advisory support through its Transaction Advisory Services programme.

The signing ceremony was attended by Pradeep Perera, Chairman of the National System Operator (Pvt) Ltd., and Takeyo Koike, Head of Market Development and Public-Private Partnership Division of the ADB, among other distinguished guests.

The Ministry said comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and avifaunal studies have been undertaken to ensure minimal impacts on bird populations, nearby communities and agricultural lands. A dedicated 220-kilovolt transmission system will also be constructed to connect the project to the national grid.

“The Kondachchi Wind Farm is a strategic national project that will help secure Sri Lanka’s energy future while accelerating the country’s transition towards sustainable and affordable electricity generation,” Aponsu said.

Energy sector experts view the project as one of the most important renewable energy initiatives currently being pursued in Sri Lanka, combining utility-scale wind generation with modern energy storage technology to enhance grid reliability and long-term energy sustainability.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Saudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey

Published

5 hours ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

Ambassador Al-Kahtani

Interview with Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka

Saudi Arabia has once again demonstrated its unparalleled capacity to manage one of the world’s largest annual religious gatherings, with this year’s Hajj pilgrimage concluding successfully despite extreme temperatures and the immense logistical challenge of accommodating more than 1.7 million pilgrims from around the world.

In an exclusive interview with The Island, Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, described the 2026 Hajj season as a resounding success, crediting the achievement to the visionary leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, and the coordinated efforts of multiple government agencies working around the clock to serve pilgrims.

The Ambassador noted that nearly 3,500 Sri Lankan pilgrims participated in this year’s Hajj under the quota allocated to Sri Lanka, benefiting from enhanced healthcare services, sophisticated crowd-management systems, expanded shaded areas and cutting-edge digital solutions introduced by the Kingdom.

With Saudi Arabia continuing to invest heavily in infrastructure, technology and pilgrim services under Vision 2030, Ambassador Al-Kahtani said the Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that pilgrims from around the world perform their religious duties in safety, comfort and tranquility.

The Saudi envoy also highlighted the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, emphasising expanding cooperation not only in Hajj affairs but also in trade, investment, education, culture and institutional exchanges.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: How do you assess this year’s Hajj season?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: This year’s Hajj season was a resounding success, thanks to the Almighty Allah and the integrated efforts of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, led by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister. This success was reflected in the efficiency of crowd management, the quality of services provided to the Hajj pilgrims and the effective coordination among the various relevant authorities, which enabled pilgrims to perform their rituals in an atmosphere of security, tranquility and ease.

Q: How many Sri Lankan pilgrims performed Hajj this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The number of Hajj pilgrims from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reached approximately 3,500, within the quota allocated to Sri Lanka for this season.

Q: Are there any discussions regarding increasing Sri Lanka’s quota in the future?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:Hajj quotas are determined according to approved regulatory mechanisms that take into account a range of considerations. The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continue to study various aspects related to developing Hajj services and accommodating the allocated numbers for all countries, in coordination with the concerned parties.

Q: What were the most prominent special arrangements implemented this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The operational plans for this season focused on enhancing the safety and comfort of the Hajj pilgrims, especially given the climatic conditions and high temperatures. Measures included expanding shaded areas, increasing water distribution points and enhancing health and ambulance services, in addition to developing the transportation system and traffic management within the holy sites.

Q: What are the most prominent digital systems and smart services that were provided?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:The Kingdom continues to implement its digital transformation objectives for the Hajj and Umrah system. The scope of electronic services offered through the Nusuk platform and application has been expanded, along with the development of digital systems for issuing permits, managing crowds, guidance and health services. This contributes to increasing the efficiency of services and improving the pilgrim’s experience at all stages of their journey.

Q: How were the challenges of overcrowding and heat addressed?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities adopted an integrated crowd-management system based on modern technologies and real-time data analysis. This was coupled with intensified health-awareness campaigns, expanded organised movement routes and increased deployment of field, medical and emergency teams. These measures support the safety of the Hajj pilgrims and reduce the risks associated with crowd density and climatic conditions.

Q: Were there special services for the elderly and sick?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Yes. The Kingdom paid special attention to the elderly and people with special health needs by providing specialized medical services, assistive transportation and facilities equipped to meet their needs, in addition to field teams working to provide humanitarian support and necessary healthcare throughout the Hajj period.

Q: How successful was the Kingdom in combating irregular Hajj permits?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continued to rigorously implement the regulations and instructions governing Hajj, utilising modern technologies and advanced monitoring procedures to reduce violations related to irregular Hajj. These efforts contributed to enhancing the safety of pilgrims, improving crowd-management efficiency and maintaining the smooth flow of movement within the holy sites.

Q: How would you describe Saudi-Sri Lankan cooperation in organising Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka is characterised by continuous and constructive coordination in all matters related to Hajj. The relevant authorities in both countries work jointly to ensure the provision of the best services for Sri Lankan pilgrims and enable them to perform their rituals with ease and peace of mind.

Q: How many Hajj pilgrims were there globally, and what were the main challenges?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: According to official statistics, the number of Hajj pilgrims this year reached 1,707,301 from various countries around the world. The main challenges included managing large crowds, ensuring public safety and providing health, transportation and accommodation services within a specific geographical and temporal scope. These challenges were addressed through advanced and integrated operational plans, which contributed to the smooth and successful completion of the Hajj season.

Q: Are there any future expansion projects?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The Kingdom continues to implement strategic development projects within the framework of Vision 2030, including developing the infrastructure in Makkah and the Holy Sites, and enhancing transportation networks and smart services. This contributes to raising the quality of services provided to pilgrims and Umrah performers and improving their long-term experience.

Q: How are Saudi-Sri Lankan relations strengthened outside the context of Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka are witnessing continuous development in many areas, including political, economic, trade, cultural and educational cooperation, in addition to developing exchanges between institutions and the private sector. This reflects the two countries’ keenness to strengthen the bilateral partnership and achieve common interests.

Q: What message would you like to convey to Sri Lankan Muslims?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: We extend our sincere congratulations to the Hajj pilgrims who have completed their Hajj rituals, and we ask Almighty Allah to accept their pilgrimage. We also assure Muslims in Sri Lanka that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia places serving the Two Holy Mosques and the guests of Almighty Allah at the forefront of its priorities and continues to develop the Hajj and Umrah system to achieve the highest standards of quality and safety.

By Ifham Nizam