Features
Revisiting presidential system of government
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.
Features
Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century
In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.
Ceasefire Hopes
Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.
Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.
Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.
In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”
Subversion from the Right
The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.
The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.
In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.
Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.
In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.
Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.
The rise and fall of Viktor Orban
Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.
At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.
To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.
Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.
During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.
Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.
The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.
Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.
For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.
The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.
EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.
by Rajan Philips
Features
ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries
Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.
ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.
At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.
By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.
Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.
Exhibition Details:
Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5
Features
Our Teardrop
BOOK REVIEW
Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)
Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3
The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.
On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.
Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.
Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.
However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.
There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.
There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.
L S M Pillai
-
Latest News7 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT arrive in Colombo
-
Latest News6 days agoPrasidh, Buttler set up comfortable win for Gujarat Titans
-
News4 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
Latest News5 days ago“I extend my heartfelt wishes to all Sri Lankans for a peaceful and joyous Sinhala and Tamil New Year!” – President
-
Latest News7 days agoHeat Index at Caution level’ in the Northern, North-central, North-western, Western and Southern provinces and in Trincomalee district.
-
Business2 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
News2 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News5 days agoUS blockade of Iran would worsen global energy crisis, analysts say

