Connect with us


Sunil R de Silva – In memory of those glorious five years



by Dr. Nihal. D. Amarasekera, UK.

Sunil was the son of Walwin. A de Silva, CCS and former Vice Chancellor of the University of Ceylon and the nephew of Dr Colvin R de Silva, Politician, Lawyer and one of the founder members of the LSSP. Sunil had his education at Royal College Colombo and entered the Faculty of Medicine Colombo in 1962. He qualified as a doctor in 1967. After serving his year as an intern at the General Hospital Galle he left for the USA. Sunil was tragically killed in a road traffic accident in 1976. I consider it an immense privilege to have spent those five years with him as medical students at an exciting and idealistic time of our youth.

Sunil de Silva was a cultured gentleman, one of the best I’ve met during my years in the faculty. As I roll back the years trying to create an image of him in my mind what stands out is the calmness he always showed despite the stress and the anxiety that was endemic in the faculty of medicine. Nothing ruffled him and he never showed any histrionics. His surname being closer to mine, alphabetically, we came into contact often and remained friends all through the five years.

Sunil was ever present in the Men’s Common Room. If my memory serves me well, he owned a Honda 50 motorbike on which he arrived early to book a game of billiards. He then spent his entire free time enjoying cups of tea chatting with friends, playing bridge and table tennis. My abiding memory of Sunil is his boundless wit and humour with a poker face. After the busy morning ward rounds I recall with much nostalgia the regular, hilarious and comical dialogues he had with Asoka Wijeyekoon and Chanaka Wijesekera over cups of tea in the Men’s Common Room. Every sentence was rib ticklingly funny. Once there was an almighty kerfuffle close to the billiard table with Sunil at the centre of it. He was maintaining he does not have a brother. His brother’s classmates around him vehemently disagreed. There was plenty of friendly banter, arguments and counterarguments before we all departed for our 11 am lecture. On our return the arguments continued unabated when finally Sunil acceded with a rare broad smile saying “I was just testing the Laws of Probability”. He was a master of sarcasm, irony and wit.

Sunil came from the upper echelons of society with a strong academic background but was resolutely down to earth. This showed even in the way he dressed. He had the remarkable ability to move with equal ease with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a trait inherited from his illustrious uncle Colvin R de Silva. He made many friends in the faculty and by his very nature had no enemies. Sunil was soft-spoken, self-effacing and sober. His lifestyle was modest and unpretentious. He was exceptionally kind to everyone and treated all with courtesy and respect. Sunil never entertained any of that frivolous gossip which was rampant in the university. We were all just out of our teenage years and showed our emotions easily, but not Sunil. I never saw those moments of sentimentality in him. Perhaps he masked them skilfully with his distinctive poker face.

He was not a run of the mill medical student. There was something very special about him. Sunil was in many ways an enigma. I use the word as a compliment, being a person with a quiet demeanour with a certain mystery surrounding his persona. As medical students in the 1960’s those were our heady days of youth enjoying a bohemian lifestyle. He never took the easier path of following the masses. His views were always well considered but often unconventional. Although peaceful he was no pushover but always stuck to his principles. He wasn’t keen on politics and religion. Cigarettes were a fashion accessory then, but he never smoked. Being teetotal, alcoholic parties were not his scene. To my recollection he never joined in the boozy evenings in the Common Room, the frolics during the Law-Medical match, Colours Nights and the Final year trip. But he remained a popular, sought after friend, well-liked and respected by all.

As we all recall, in those five years there was an enormous amount of cramming to be done. Sunil rarely spoke of his work schedule but had the intelligence and the discipline to sail through the examinations. He feared no one and no situation. From the signatures and revisals to ward work and examinations, life was stressful. There were times our teachers treated us with such derision and disdain, it hurt us deep within. He uncomplainingly took it all in his stride.

This is not an attempt to deify Sunil R de Silva. I am certain he had some of the faults we all possess as fallible humans. But I just cannot recall any.

When I bade farewell on that fateful day in 1967 in the plush lobby of the faculty of medicine, I never knew I will not see Sunil again. His early demise brought great sadness. Although we were together just for five years it is as if I’ve known him all my life. I would have loved to see him age like me, suffer the same indignities of the ‘Athey Paye Rudawa’, taking a pharmacy of tablets to stay alive, while showering love on the grandchildren. We could have then compared notes how life has treated us since those halcyon days. I can imagine him wearing his poker face, now marked with lines and furrows, just like mine. Pardon me for capturing the tragedy of old age.

He may have a chuckle reading this narrative, wagging his finger at me.

Sunil was a gem in a world of pebbles. His was a short life well lived. I am grateful for his friendship. To live in the hearts we leave behind is not to die.

When I think of Sunil, I’m reminded of a poem I learnt as a child that matched his persona perfectly:

Some go silently into the nightwalk through the park of our humanitywith breath that parts no air -steps that bend no grass -disturbing nothing as they pass.


May you attain the Ultimate Bliss of Nirvana

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


TNGlive relieving boredom



Yes, indeed, the going is tough for everyone, due to the pandemic, and performers seem to be very badly hit, due to the lockdowns.

Our local artistes are feeling the heat and so are their counterparts in most Indian cities.

However, to relieve themselves of the boredom, while staying at home, quite a few entertaining Indian artistes, especially from the Anglo-Indian scene, have showcased their talents on the very popular social media platform TNGlive.

And, there’s plenty of variety – not just confined to the oldies, or the current pop stuff; there’s something for everyone. And, some of the performers are exceptionally good.

Lynette John is one such artiste. She hails from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, and she was quite impressive, with her tribute to American singer Patsy Cline.

She was featured last Thursday, as well (June 10), on TNGlive, in a programme, titled ‘Love Songs Special,’ and didn’t she keep viewers spellbound – with her power-packed vocals, and injecting the real ‘feel’ into the songs she sang.

What an awesome performance.

Well, if you want to be a part of the TNGlive scene, showcasing your talents, contact Melantha Perera, on 0773958888.

Continue Reading


Supreme Court on Port City Bill: Implications for Fundamental Rights and Devolution



The determination of the Supreme Court on the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Bill was that as many as 26 provisions of the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution and required to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. The Court further determined that nine provisions of the Bill also required the approval of the people at a referendum.

Among the grounds of challenge was that the Bill effectively undermined the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and infringed on the sovereignty of the people. It was argued that several provisions undermined the legislative power of the People reposed on Parliament. Several provisions were challenged as violating fundamental rights of the People and consequently violating Article 3, read with Article 4(d) of the Constitution. Another ground of challenge was that the Bill contained provisions that dealt with subjects that fall within the ambit of the Provincial Council List and thus had to be referred to every Provincial Council for the expression of its views thereon as required by Article 154G(3).


Applicable constitutional provisions

Article 3 of our Constitution recognises that “[i]n the Republic of Sri Lanka, sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable”. Article 3 further provides that “Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise”. Article 3 is entrenched in the sense that a Bill inconsistent with it must by virtue of Article 83 be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approved by the people at a referendum.

Article 4 lays down the manner in which sovereignty shall be exercised and enjoyed. For example, Article 4(d) requires that “fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognised shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government and shall not be abridged, restricted or denied, save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided”. Article 4 is not mentioned in Article 83. In its determinations on the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 2002 and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 2002, a seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court noted with approval that the Court had ruled in a series of cases that Article 3 is linked up with Article 4 and that the said Articles should be read together. This line of reasoning was followed by the Court in its determination on the 20th Amendment to the Constitution Bill.

Under Article 154G(3), Parliament may legislate on matters in the Provincial Council List but under certain conditions. A Bill on a matter in the Provincial Council List must be referred by the President, after its publication in the Gazette and before it is placed in the Order Paper of Parliament, to every Provincial Council for the expression of its views thereon. If every Council agrees to the passing of the Bill, it may be passed by a simple majority. But if one or more Councils do not agree, a two-thirds majority is required if the law is to be applicable in all Provinces, including those that did not agree. If passed by a simple majority, the law will be applicable only in the Provinces that agreed.


Violation of fundamental rights and need for a referendum

Several petitioners alleged that certain provisions of the Port City Bill violated fundamental rights. The rights referred to were mainly Article 12(1)—equality before the law and equal protection of the law, Article 14(1)(g)—freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, profession, trade, business or enterprise— and Article 14(1)(h)—freedom of movement. Some petitioners specifically averred that provisions that violated fundamental rights consequently violated Articles 3 and 4 and thus needed people’s approval at a referendum.

The Supreme Court determined that several provisions of the Bill violated various fundamental rights and thus were required to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. The question of whether the said provisions consequently violated Article 4(d) and thus Article 3 and therefore required the approval of the People at a referendum was not ruled on.

The Essential Public Services Bill, 1979 was challenged as being violative of both Article 11 (cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment) and Article 14. Mr. H.L. de Silva argued that a Bill that violates any fundamental right is also inconsistent with Article 4(d) and, therefore, with Article 3. The Supreme Court held that the Bill violated Article 11 but not Article 14. Since a Bill that violates Article 11 has, in any case, to be approved at a referendum as Article 11 is listed in Article 83, the Court declined to decide on whether the Bill offended Article 3 as well, as it “is a well-known principle of constitutional law that a court should not decide a constitutional issue unless it is directly relevant to the case before it.”

A clear decision on the issue came about in the case of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution Bill; a seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the decisions of the Constitutional Council from the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Court was inconsistent with Articles 12 (1) and 17 (remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights by executive action) and consequently inconsistent with Article 3, necessitating the approval of the Bill at a referendum.

When the 20th Amendment to the Constitution Bill sought to restore the immunity of the President in respect fundamental rights applications, the Supreme Court determined that the “People’s entitlement to remedy under Article 17 is absolute and is a direct expression of People’s fundamental rights under Article 3 of the Constitution.”

In the case of the Port City Bill, however, the Supreme Court only determined that certain provisions of the Bill violated fundamental rights and thus required a two-thirds majority, but did not go further to say that the offending provisions also required approval of the people at a referendum.

Perhaps, the Court took into consideration the Attorney-General’s assurance during the hearing that the impugned clauses would be amended at the committee stage in Parliament.

However, Parliament is not bound by the Attorney-General’s assurances. In the absence of a clear determination that the clauses concerned required a referendum as well, Parliament could have passed the clauses by a two-thirds majority. The danger inherent in the Supreme Court holding that a provision of a Bill violates fundamental rights and requires a two-thirds majority but makes no reference to the requirement of a referendum is that a government with a two-thirds majority is free to violate fundamental rights, and hence the sovereignty of the People by using such majority. It is respectfully submitted that the Court should, whenever it finds that a provision violates fundamental rights, declare that Article 3 is also violated and a referendum is necessary, as it did in the cases mentioned.


The need to refer the Bill to Provincial Councils

The Port City Bill had not been referred to the Provincial Councils, all the Provincial Councils having been dissolved. The Court, following earlier decisions, held that in the absence of constituted Provincial Councils, referring the Bill to all Provincial Councils is an act which could not possibly be performed.

In the case of the Divineguma II Bill, the question arose as to the applicability of the Bill to the Northern Provincial Council, which was not constituted at that time. The Court held while the Bill cannot possibly be referred to a Council that had not been constituted, the views of the Governor (who had purported to express consent) could not be considered as the views of the Council. In the circumstances, the only workable interpretation is that since the views of one Provincial Council cannot be obtained due to it being not constituted, the Bill would require to be passed by a two-thirds majority. Although not explicitly stated by the Court, this would mean that if the Bill is passed by a simple majority only, it will not apply in the Northern Province. The Bill was passed in Parliament by a two-thirds majority. The Divineguma II Bench comprised Shirani Bandaranayake CJ and Justices Amaratunga and Sripavan, and it is well-known that the decision and the decision on the Divineguma I Bill cost Chief Justice Bandaranayake her position.

It is submitted that Article 154G (3) has two requirements—one procedural and one substantive. The former is that a Bill on any matter in the Provincial Council List must be referred to all Provincial Councils. The latter is that in the absence of the consent of all Provincial Councils, the Bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority if it is to apply to the whole country. If such a Bill is passed only by a simple majority, it would apply only in the Provinces which have consented.

The Divineguma II determination accords with the ultimate object of Article 154G(3), namely, that a Bill can be imposed on a Province whose Provincial Council has not consented to it only by a two-thirds majority. It also accords with the spirit of devolution.

A necessary consequence of the Court’s determination on the Port City Bill is that it permits a government to impose a Bill on a Provincial Council matter on a “disobedient” Province by a simple majority once the Provincial Council is dissolved and before an election is held. What is worse is that at a time when all Provincial Councils are dissolved, such as now, a Bill that is detrimental to devolution can be so imposed on the entire country. It is submitted that this issue should be re-visited when the next Bill on a Provincial Council matter is presented and the Supreme Court invited to make a determination that accords with the spirit of devolution, which is an essential part of the spirit of our Constitution.



Continue Reading


‘Down On My Knees’ inspires Suzi



There are certain songs that inspire us a great deal – perhaps the music, the lyrics, etc.

Singer Suzi Fluckiger (better known as Suzi Croner, to Sri Lankans) went ga-ga when she heard the song ‘Down On My Knees’ – first the version by Eric Guest, from India, then the original version by Freddie Spires, and then another version by an Indian band, called Circle of Love.

Suzi was so inspired by the lyrics of this particular song that she immediately went into action, and within a few days, she came up with her version of ‘Down On My knees.’

In an exclusive chit-chat, with The Island Star Track, she said she is now working on a video, for this particular song.

“The moment I heard ‘Down On My Knees,’ I fell in love with the inspiring lyrics, and the music, and I thought to myself I, too, need to express my feelings, through this beautiful song.

“I’ve already completed the audio and I’m now working on the video, and no sooner it’s ready, I will do the needful, on social media.”

Suzi also mentioned to us that this month (June), four years ago, she lost her husband Roli Fluckiger.

“It’s sad when you lose the person you love but, then, we all have to depart, one day. And, with that in mind, I believe it’s imperative that we fill our hearts with love and do good…always.”

A few decades ago, Suzi and the group Friends were not only immensely popular, in Sri Lanka, but abroad, as well – especially in Europe.

In Colombo, the Friends fan club had a membership of over 1500 members. For a local band, that’s a big scene, indeed!

In Switzerland, where she now resides, Suzi is doing the solo scene and was happy that the lockdown, in her part of the world, has finally been lifted.

Her first gig, since the lockdown (which came into force on December 18th, 2020), was at a restaurant, called Flavours of India, with her singing partner from the Philippines, Sean, who now resides in Switzerland. (Sean was seen performing with Suzi on the TNGlive platform, on social media, a few weeks ago).

“It was an enjoyable event, with those present having a great time. I, too, loved doing my thing, after almost six months.’

Of course, there are still certain restrictions, said Suzi – only four to a table and a maximum crowd of 50.

“Weekends are going to be busy for me, as I already have work coming my way, and I’m now eagerly looking forward to going out…on stage, performing.”

In the meanwhile, Suzi will continue to entertain her fans, and music lovers, on TNGlive – whenever time permits, she said,

She has already done three shows, on TNGlive – the last was with her Filipino friend, Sean.

Continue Reading