A Malaprop was the butt of many a joke. But he was a jolly and pleasant man, a lawyer with a successful criminal and civil practice. Like Apey George of Kandy, he is now dead, but the stories about him live on. One day he appeared in a case where his opposing counsel kept on distorting every argument he had put forward. Unable to stand it any longer, he sprang wrathfully to his feet, and addressing the Magistrate thundered, “Sir, my learned friend has got the wrong end of my stick!”
Another day he appeared for some prostitutes who had been rounded up by the police and produced in Court. As the Magistrate was about to remand them, he hastily got up and told the Magistrate: “It is not necessary to remand these ladies, Sir. They are available to the Court any time.”
In his later years, he was quite toothless, and one day he was cross examining a witness for the prosecution in a highway robbery case. In order to drive home the point that the witness’ eyesight was so poor that he possibly could not have seen what he had just described to the Court, this lawyer held up two fingers and said: “What can you see?” “I can see two fingers, and behind them a ‘Lomba,” replied the witness. ‘Lomba’ is a derogatory term for a toothless person).
On another occasion, he appeared for an accused, charged with stealing coconuts. The Magistrate found the man guilty and asked the defence lawyer whether he had anything to say in mitigation. “Yes sir,” replied the lawyer. “They were very, very small coconuts, Sir, only this much in size!” said the lawyer, demonstrating with his hands.
There was a maintenance case, and this lawyer appeared for the wronged wife. As he was pressing the claim of the wife for maintenance, her husband’s lawyer interrupted to charge that she was living in adultery with another man, and had delivered a child just a month earlier and that she had been separated from her legal husband for two years. The lawyer for the woman said he was shocked at his friend’s allegation and asserted that his client was an honourable and virtuous woman. At this the husband’s lawyer challenged the opposing counsel to ask his client whether she had delivered a child a month before.
After consulting the woman, the lawyer told the Court, “Yes sir, a child had been delivered but it’s hardly worth making a fuss about. You see sir, it’s a very, very small child, only this size!” said the lawyer, once again demonstrating with his hands.
He appeared for an accused who was charged with intimidation, but when the case came up, an amicable settlement was arrived at. As the parties were about to leave, the lawyer for the other side who was an MP at the time, sneered, “Your client should be very happy about this settlement, for if the case went to trial, things would have been very difficult for him. He is an I.R.C.” The accused’s lawyer objected vehemently to these uncalled-for remarks, and the lawyer MP challenged him to ask his client whether he was an I.R.C. or not. Thereupon the lawyer walked up to his client and questioned him, and the man confessed that he was an I.R.C. Addressing the Court, the lawyer then said, “Yes sir, he has I.R.C. after his name, which makes him a man of letters, and therefore fit to be even an MP!”
A cynic once remarked that a lawyer was one who instigates two people to fight in the nude and runs away with their clothes.
A doctor, a lawyer and an engineer were fellow passengers on a ship. Suddenly, the vessel hit a rock and began to sink. A lifeboat had broken its moorings and was drifting out to sea, and seeing it, the doctor shouted, “Look, look! An empty lifeboat and it’s drifting away!” “Don’t worry,” said the lawyer, “I’ll get it!” Diving into the water the lawyer swam easily and unhurriedly towards the lifeboat. “Oh, my God! Look!” gasped the engineer, pointing a frantic finger at the fearsome black fins of a school of sharks circling, ominously, the swimming lawyer. But the lawyer reached the lifeboat without mishap, climbed in and rowed back. “They didn’t harm him!” cried the engineer happily, “The sharks didn’t harm him!” “Yes” said the doctor drily, “professional courtesy!”
At Law College, the lecturer told his students. “When you are appearing in a murder case, if the facts are on your side, hammer them to the jury. And, if the law is on your side, hammer it to the judge.” “What if neither is on your side?” asked one student. “Then, you hammer the bloody table.”
There was once a criminal lawyer with a very lucrative practice, but alas, he was a wee bit absent-minded. “One day, he rose to his feet and began addressing the Court. “Your honour”, he thundered, “I know this accused very well! He has the reputation of being one of the most barefaced scoundrels and the most impudent rascals …” There was a sudden flurry of excitement and dismay at the bar table, and the lawyer’s junior tugged as his sleeve, “Sir, sir”, the junior said frenziedly, “we are appearing for the accused, not the complainant. Without batting an eyelid, the lawyer continued. “That is what everybody says about this accused, your honour, but I ask your honour, who is the man, however great and good, however honest and law-abiding, who hasn’t been, like the innocent accused here in the dock, vilified unjustly by his fellow men?”
I. M. Ismail (later Justice) was accorded a felicitation dinner by the Galle Bar on his appointment as a Commissioner of Assize. It was presided over by a retired Commissioner of Assize who was quite corpulent and broad of girth. The late A. Mampitiya, classics scholar and a leading lawyer of the day proposing the toast of the Chief Guest, quipped: “Gentlemen, tonight we have the honour of having ‘two’ Commissioners with us. One a Commissioner of Assize, and the other a Commissioner A-size.”
On another occasion the Galle Bar gave a complimentary dinner to a well-known lawyer who had reached a milestone in his long and illustrious career. This lawyer had a loud voice, and in a bad case, his modus operandi was to bowl out and shout down both opposing counsel and witnesses. Proposing the toast of the Chief Guest, another leading lawyer said, “My learned friend’s advocacy is always sound, and nothing but sound!”
A veteran lawyer, noted for his quick wit and repartee, was cross-examining a witness, a very rich and colourful personality, in a land case, when the Court adjourned for lunch. After lunch the cross-examination was resumed.
“Witness, I put it to you that you are drunk.”
“I am not”.
“I am told that you had two whiskies over lunch.”
“That’s a damn lie! I had four gins!”
“Tell me, witness, why do you drink?”
“That is my pleasure”
“But don’t you think it is injurious to your health?”
“I prefer to drink and die!”
At this, the presiding Judge, J. F. A. Soza (later Justice) then Additional District Judge of Galle, quipped, “Today, Greek has met Greek! Please carry on.”
The lawyer’s side in the Galle Law – Medical Cricket Match of 1972 was captained by the then District Judge of Galle (later Justice), J. A. F. Soyza. The doggerel describing him in the Law-Medical souvenir was:
‘Ye medicos beware,
Bat and bowl with care.
He’s the Captain of our team,
And though he’ll not be mean.
He’ll permit the loss
Of only the toss!’
The vice-captain of the team was George Rajapaksa, then a Cabinet Minister. The doggerel describing him was:
Glutton for runs,
Centurion more than once.
At a seminar in Colombo, a legal luminary said that he had once received the gift of a ceramic beer mug and on it was painted the following verse:
“Doctors do little,
Policemen and Analysts
Add to the mess.”
Lawyers are expected to be shrewd and quick of mind. A young man who had just passed the Bar examination was being interviewed for a job by a prestigious law firm. “What would you do” a partner asked, “if a prospective client asked you for advice on a subject you knew nothing about?” “I would tell the client,” the young man replied without hesitation, “Give me a retainer of Rs. 1000.00 and call me in the morning.” He was chosen for the job.
Two friends were taking a balloon ride. Suddenly, the wind dropped and the balloon began to descend rapidly. They saw a man standing in a field. One of them called out to the man: “Where are we?” The man shouted back: “In a balloon.” The questioner turned to his companion in the balloon and said with disgust, “That man is a lawyer.” The friend asked, “How do you know that?”. The other said, “Why? His answer was short, concise, accurate and utterly useless.”
A lawyer and a doctor were attracted to the charming girl-receptionist of the hotel where they dined. One day, before setting off on a one-week vacation, the lawyer presented her seven apples, in keeping with the familiar expression ‘An apple a day keeps the doctor away’.
Malapropism originated with Mrs. Malaprop, who was a character in one of Sheridan’s plays, who took astounding liberties with the Queen’s English. A client wanted to retain a certain Malaprop for a case, and went to see him one morning at his residence. Since he didn’t have enough to pay the Malaprop’s fee, the client promised to bring the balance in the evening at about five. “No, no,” said Malaprop. “Don’t come at five. At 5.00 I have to go for a murder. Come at 6.30 or 7.00. The shocked client hurried away. Not wishing to have anything to do with the Malaprop after the murder, he visited the man at about four that evening, to find him dressed in spotless white. It was then that it struck him that when the Malaprop said ‘murder’ what he had actually meant was ‘funeral’.
One of our most brilliant criminal lawyers was well known for the stupendous fees he charged.
When the lawyer quoted an astronomical fee, the client nearly fainted and asked him “Why so much sir?” “Well …” said the other, “that includes my junior’s fees as well.” “Sir, is a junior necessary?” “My dear man if my car gets stuck on my way to Court, who is there to push it?”
Justice Barber was the presiding judge at the Kandy Assize sessions. And, an interesting and a controversial case was to be heard before him. His wife, daughters and sons and same nephews and nieces were all present in Court that day to listen to it. The famous Kandy Lawyer, Cox Sproule, who came to Court, saw the judge’s family gathering and exclaimed “My God! Is this a Supreme Court or a barber’s salon!”
A government servant was the accused in a certain case, and when the Magistrate told him that the nature of his offence was such that he would have to remand him for fourteen days, his lawyer got up and said: “Sir, I beg of you not to remand him. My client is holding an important government post and if you remand him, he won’t be able to do the job for 14 days!”
What JVP-NPP needs to do to win
By Dr. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
A young academic at the Open University writing on a popular website has recently defined the NPP project as ‘Left populist’, a term which is very familiar to us at least from the writings of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. He also mentions several parallels and precursors internationally.
As one who has been advocating a ‘left populist’ project for years, I am disinclined to nit-pick about whether or not the JVP-NPP fits the bill. At the moment and in its current incarnation, it is indeed the closest we have to a ‘left populist’ project. Its competitor the SJB, which its founder-leader identifies as social democratic, would be as approximate –and as loose– a fit for the labels ‘progressive populist’, ‘moderate populist’ or ‘populist centrist’, as the JVP-NPP is for ‘left populist’. But that’s the deck of cards we have.
The points I seek to make are different, and may be said to boil down to a single theme or problematique.
Distorted Left Populism
My argument is that the JVP-NPP is as distant from ‘left populism’ globally as it was from ‘left revolutionism’ globally in an earlier incarnation. In both avatars, it is unique in its leftism but not in a positive or helpful way for its cause at any given time.
Mine is not intended as a damning indictment of the JVP-NPP. It is intended as a constructive criticism of a rectifiable error, the rectification of which is utterly urgent given the deadly threat posed by the Wickremesinghe administration and its project of dependent dictatorship.
The JVP-NPP has a structural absence that no ‘left populist’ enterprise, especially in Latin America, has ever had. It is an absence that has marked the JVP from its inception and has been carried over into the present NPP project.
It is not an absence unique to the JVP but figures more in Sri Lanka than it has almost anywhere else. I say this because the same ‘absence’ characterised the LTTE as well. In short, that factor or its radical absence has marred the anti-systemic forces of South and North on the island.
The homeland of left populism has been Latin America while its second home has been Southern Europe. With the exception of Greece, it may be said that ‘left populism’ has an Ibero-American or culturally Hispanic character, which some might trace to the ‘romanticism’ of that culture. But such considerations need not detain us here.
‘Left populism’ has had several identifiable sources and points of departure: the former guerrilla movements of the 1960s and 1970s; the non-guerrilla movements of resistance to dictatorships; parties and split-offs from parties of the Marxist left; left-oriented split-offs or the leftwing of broad flexible even centrist populist formations; leftwing experiments from within the militaries etc.
Populism, Pluralism & Unity
Despite this diversity, all experiments of a Left populist character in Latin America and Europe, have had one thing in common: various forms of unity – e.g., united fronts, blocs etc.—of political parties. I would take up far too much space if I were to list them, starting with the Frente Amplio (which means precisely ‘Broad Front’) initiated by the Tupamaros-MLN of Uruguay and containing the Uruguayan Communist party and headed by a military man, General Liber Seregni, in 1970. The Frente Amplio lasted through the decades of the darkest civil-military dictatorship up to the presidential electoral victories of Tabaré Vasquez and Mujica respectively. Another example would be El Salvador’s FMLN, which brought together several Marxist guerrilla movements into a single front under the stern insistence of Fidel Castro.
Though the roots of unity were back in the 1970s, the formula has only been strengthened in the 1990s and 21st century projects of Left populism. There is a theoretical-strategic logic for this. The polarisation of ‘us vs them’, the 99% vs. the 1%, the many not the few—in socioeconomic terms—is of course a hallmark of populism. But pro-NPP academics and ideologues are unaware of or omit its corollary everywhere from Uruguay to Greece and Spain. Namely, that socioeconomic ‘majoritarianism’ is not possible with a single party as agency.
When the JVP and the NPP have the same leader, and the JVP leader was the founder of the NPP, I cannot regard it as a truly autonomous project, but a party project. Left populism globally, from its inception right up to Lula last year, is predicated on the admission of political, not just social plurality, and the fact that socioeconomic, i.e., popular majoritarianism is possible only as a pluri-party united front, platform or bloc.
This recognition of the imperative of unity as necessitating a convergence of political fractions and currents; that unity is impossible as a function of a single political party; that authentic majoritarianism i.e., “us” is possible only if “we” converge and combine as an ensemble of our organic political agencies, is a structural feature of Left Populism.
It is radically absent in the JVP-NPP and has been so from the JVP’s founding in 1965. It was also true of the LTTE.
It is this insistence on political unipolarity (to put it diplomatically) or political monopoly (to put it bluntly) is a genetic defect of the JVP which has been carried over into the NPP project.
I do not say this to contest the leading role and the main role that the JVP has earned in any left populist project. I say it to draw the Gramscian distinction between ‘leadership’ and ‘domination’. Only ‘leadership’ can create consensus and popular consent; domination through monopoly cannot.
The simple truth is that however ‘left populist’ you think you are; no single party can be said to represent the people or even a majority – as distinct from a mere plurality– of the people. Furthermore, the people are not a unitary subject, and therefore cannot have a unitary leadership. This is the importance of Fidel Castro’s insistence to the Latin American Left of a ‘united command’ which brings together the diverse segments of the left by reflecting plurality.
Anyone who knows the history of Syriza and Podemos knows that they are not outcrops of some single party of long-standing but the result of an organic process of convergences of factions.
Had the JVP had a policy of united fronts – within the Southern left and with the Northern left– it would not have been as decisively defeated as it was in its two insurrections, and might have even succeeded in its second attempt. Though it has formed the NPP which has brought some significant success, it is still POLITICALLY sectarian in that it has no political alliances, partnerships, i.e., NO POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS outside of itself.
I must emphasize that here I am not speaking of a bloc with the SJB, though it is most desirable, to be recommended, and if this were Latin America would definitely be on the agenda of discussion.
Let us speak frankly. The most important phenomenon of recent times (since the victorious end of the war) was the Aragalaya of last year. The JVP, especially its student front the SYU, participated in that massive uprising which dislodged President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but it played a less decisive role in the Aragalaya than did the FSP and the IUSF which is close to it. This is by no means to say that the FSP led the Aragalaya, but to point out that it played a more decisive role – which included some mistakes– than did the JVP.
How then does one remain blind to the fact that the JVP-NPP’s ‘left populism’ does not include the FSP and by extension the IUSF? How can there be a ‘popular bloc’ – a key element of left populism—without the IUSF?
Given that Pubudu Jayagoda, Duminda Nagamuwa, Lahiru Weerasekara and Wasantha Mudalige are among the most successful public communicators today (especially on the left), what kind of ‘left’ is a ‘left populism’ devoid of their presence, participation and contribution?
What does it take to recognise that unity of some sort of these two streams of the Left could result in a most useful division of labour and a quantum leap in the hopes and morale of the increasingly left-oriented post-Aragalaya populace, especially the youth?
Surely the very sight of a platform with the leaders of the JVP-NPP and the FSP-IUSF (AKD and Kumar Gunaratnam, Eranga Gunasekara and Wasantha Mudalige, Wasantha Samarasinghe and Duminda Nagamuwa, Bimal Ratnayake and Pubudu Jayagoda) will take the Left populist project to the next level?
As a party the JVP from its birth, and by extension, the NPP today, have set aside one of the main weapons of leftist theory, strategy and political practice: the United Front. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dimitrov, Gramsci, Togliatti, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro have founded and enriched this strategic concept.
It is difficult to accept that Rohana Wijeweera and Anura Kumara Dissanayake knew/know better than these giants, and that the JVP-NPP can dispense with this political sword and shield and yet prevail–or even survive the coming storm.
The JVP must present a LEFT option in the leadership of which is the major shareholder; not merely a JVP option or para-JVP option, which is what the NPP is. A credible, viable Left alternative cannot be reduced to a single party and its front/auxiliary; it cannot but be a United Left – a Left Front– alternative.
[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka is author of The Great Gramsci: Imagining an Alt-Left Project, in ‘On Public Imagination: A Political & Ethical Imperative’ eds Richard Falk et al, Routledge, New York, 2019.]
Obtaining fresh mandate unavoidable requirement
by Jehan Perera
The government’s plans for reviving the economy show signs of working out for the time being. The long-awaited IMF loan is about to be granted. This would enable the government to access other loans to tide over the current economic difficulties. The challenge will be to ensure that both the old loans and new ones will be repayable. To this end the government has begun to implement its new tax policy which increases the tax burden significantly on income earners who can barely make ends meet, even without the taxes, in the aftermath of the rise in price levels. The government is also giving signals that it plans to downsize the government bureaucracy and loss-making state enterprises. These are reforms that may be necessary to balance the budget, but they are not likely to gain the government the favour of the affected people. The World Bank has warned that many are at risk of falling back into poverty, with 40 percent of the population living on less than 225 rupees per person per day.
The problem for the government is that the economic policies, required to stabilize the economy, are not popular ones. They are also politically difficult ones. The failure to analyse the past does not help us to ascertain reasons for our failures and also avoids taking action against those who had misused, or damaged, the system unfairly. The costs of this economic restructuring, to make the country financially viable, is falling heavily, if not disproportionately, on those who are middle class and below. Fixed income earners are particularly affected as they bear a double burden in being taxed at higher levels, at a time when the cost of living has soared. Unlike those in the business sector, and independent professionals, who can pass on cost increases to their clients, those in fixed incomes find it impossible to make ends meet. Emigration statistics show that over 1.2 million people, or five percent of the population, left the country, for foreign employment, last year.
The economic hardships, experienced by the people, has led to the mobilization of traditional trade unions and professionals’ organisations. They are all up in arms against the government’s income generation, at their expense. Last week’s strike, described as a token strike, was successful in that it evoked a conciliatory response from the government. Many workers did not keep away from work, perhaps due to the apprehension that they might not only lose their jobs, but also their properties, as threatened by one government member, who is close to the President. There was a precedent for this in 1981 when the government warned striking workers that they would be sacked. The government carried out its threat and over 40,000 government officials lost their jobs. They and their families were condemned to a long time in penury. The rest of society went along with the repression as the government was one with an overwhelming mandate from the people.
The striking unions have explained their decision to temporarily discontinue their strike action due to President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s willingness to reconsider their economic grievances. More than 40 trade unions, in several sectors, joined the strike. They explained they had been compelled to resort to strike action as there was no positive response from the government to their demands. Due to the strike, services such as health, posts, and railways were affected. Workers in other sectors, including education, port, power, water supply, petroleum, road development, and banking services, also joined the strike. The striking unions have said they would take up the President’s offer to discuss their concerns with the government and temporarily called a halt to their strike action. This would give the government an opportunity to rethink its strategy. Unlike the government in 1981 this one has no popular mandate. In the aftermath of the protest movement, it has only a legal mandate.
So far, the government has been unyielding in the face of public discontent. Public protests have been suppressed. Protest leaders have been arrested and price and tax hikes have gone ahead as planned. The government has been justifying the rigid positions it has been taking on the basis of its prioritization of economic recovery for which both political stability and financial resources are necessary. However, by refusing to heed public opinion the government has been putting itself on a course of confrontation with organized forces, be they trade unions or political parties. The severity of the economic burden, placed on the larger section of society, even as other sectors of society appear to be relatively unaffected, creates a perception of injustice that needs to be mitigated. Engaging in discussion with the trade unions and reconsidering its approach to those who have been involved in public protests could be peace making gestures in the current situation.
On the other hand, exacerbating the political crisis is the government’s continuing refusal to hold the local government elections, as scheduled, on two occasions now by the Elections Commission and demanded by law. The government’s stance is even in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s directives that the government should release the financial resources necessary for the purpose leading to an ever-widening opposition to it. The government’s determination to thwart the local government elections stems from its pragmatic concerns regarding its ability to fare well at them. Public opinion polls show the government parties obtaining much lower support than the opposition parties. Except for the President, the rest of the government consists of the same political parties and government members that faced the wrath of the people’s movement a year ago and had to resign in ignominy.
The government’s response to the pressures it is under has been to repress the protest movement through police action that is especially intolerant of street protests. It has also put pressure on state institutions to conform to its will, regardless of the law. The decisions of the Election Commission to set dates for the local government elections have been disregarded once, and the elections now appear to have to be postponed yet again. The government is also defying summons upon its ministers by the Human Rights Commission which has been acting independently to hold the government to account to the best extent it can. The government’s refusal to abide by the judicial decision not to block financial resources for election purposes is a blow to the rule of law that will be to the longer-term detriment of the country. These are all negative trends that are recipes for future strife and lawlessness. These would have long term and unexpected implications not to the best for the development of the country or its values.
There are indications that President Wickremesinghe is cognizant of the precariousness of the situation. The accumulation of pressures needs to be avoided, be it for gas at homes or issues in the country. As an experienced political leader, student of international politics, he would be aware of the dangers posed by precipitating a clash involving the three branches of government. A confrontation with the judiciary, or a negation of its decisions, would erode the confidence in the entire legal system. It would damage the confidence of investors and the international community alike in the stability of the polity and its commitment to the rule of law. The public exhortations of the US ambassador with regard to the need to conduct the local government elections would have driven this point home.
It is also likely that the US position on the importance of holding elections on time is also held by the other Western countries and Japan. Sri Lanka is dependent on these countries, still the wealthiest in the world, for its economic sustenance, trade and aid, in the form of concessional financing and benefits, such as the GSP Plus tariff concession. Therefore, the pressures coming from both the ground level in the country and the international community, may push the government in the direction of elections and seeking a mandate from the people. Strengthening the legitimacy of the government to govern effectively and engage in problem solving in the national interest requires an electoral mandate. The mandate sought may not be at the local government level, where public opinion polls show the government at its weakest, but at the national level which the President can exercise at his discretion.
Sing-along… Down Memory Lane
Sing-alongs have turned out to be hugely popular, in the local showbiz scene, and, I would say, it’s mainly because they are family events, and also the opportunity given to guests to shine, in the vocal spotlight, for a minute, or two!
I first experienced a sing-along when I was invited to check out the famous Rhythm World Dance School sing-along evening.
It was, indeed, something different, with Sohan & The X-Periments doing the needful, and, today, Sohan and his outfit are considered the No.1 band for sing-along events.
I’m told that the first ever sing-along concert, in Sri Lanka, was held on 27th April, 1997, and it was called Down Memory Lane (DML), presented by the Moratuwa Arts Forum (MAF),
The year 2023 is a landmark year for the MAF and, I’m informed, they will be celebrating their Silver Jubilee with a memorable concert, on 29th April, 2023, at the Grand Bolgoda Resort, Moratuwa.
Due to the Covid pandemic, their sing-along series had to be cancelled, as well as their planned concert for 2019. However, the organisers say the delayed 25th Jubilee Celebration concert is poised to be a thriller, scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2023.
During the past 25 years, 18 DML concerts had been held, and the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will be the 19th in the series.
Famous, and much-loved, ‘golden oldies’, will be sung by the audience of music lovers, at this two and a half hours programme.
Down Memory Lane was the brainchild of musician Priya Peiris, (of ‘Cock-a-Doodle-Do’ fame) and the MAF became the pioneers of sing-along concerts in Sri Lanka.
The repertoire of songs for the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will include a vast selection of international favourites, Cowboy and old American Plantation hits, Calypsos, Negro Spirituals, everybody’s favourites, from the ’60s and ’70s era, Sinhala evergreens, etc.
Singers from the Moratuwa Arts Forum will be on stage to urge the audience to sing. The band Echo Steel will provide the musical accompaniment for the audience to join in the singing, supported by Brian Coorey, the left handed electric bass guitarist, and Ramany Soysa on grand piano.
The organisers say that every participant will get a free songbook. There would also be a raffle draw, with several prizes to be won,
Arun Dias Bandaranaike will be the master of ceremonies.
President of the Moratuwa Arts Forum, Melantha Perera, back from Australia, after a successful tour, says: “All music lovers, especially Golden Oldies enthusiasts, are cordially invited to come with their families, and friends, to have an enjoyable evening, and to experience heartwarming fellowship and bonhomie.”
Further details could be obtained from MAF Treasurer, Laksiri Fernando (077 376 22 75).
Ukraine to clinch first IMF loan to nation at war
President requests the opposition to support the implementation of the IMF agreement
Property tax to be replaced with Wealth Tax, Gift Tax and Estate Tax – President
‘Dates have the highest sugar content to fight Coronavirus’
Sunday Island 27 December – Headlines
U.S. Congress to probe assets fleecing by US citizens of Sri Lankan origin
News4 days ago
Sri Lankan recognized as a Fellow by Society of Architectural Historians
Features6 days ago
Earth’s Greatest Rivalry
Breaking News7 days ago
Credit Suisse slump renews fears of global banking crisis
News7 days ago
Underworld figures flown to Colombo from Madagascar
Editorial6 days ago
Smash glass ceiling
News4 days ago
New orchid species discovered in Walankada Forest Reserve
News3 days ago
Geoffrey Bawa exhibition opens in New Delhi
Features6 days ago
A middle path for Sri Lankan agriculture: Sustainable intensification – II