Features
The COVID-19 Pandemic in Sri Lanka: Contextualising it geographically
By Dr. Nalani Hennayake and
Dr. Kumuduni Kumarihamy
(Continued from Friday)
The statistics and information aside, what this tells us is that the hope for immunization through a vaccine for the coronavirus could be far off than we think. Dynamics of vaccine politics exists within global politics and the capitalist economy. The Drug Controller General of India has approved the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and another by the Indian manufacturer Bharat Biotech for emergency care. During his recent visit to Sri Lanka, India’s Foreign Minister had pledged that India would prioritize Sri Lanka when supplying vaccines to other countries. In the same meeting, the Indian Foreign Minister had reiterated “India’s backing for Sri Lanka’s reconciliation process and an ‘inclusive political outlook’ that encourages ethnic harmony while the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister rejoiced in the merits of ‘Neighbourhood First Policy’.” At the same time, it was reported that Sri Lanka is making plans to sign an agreement to secure the COVID-19 vaccine through the COVAX facility, which is already approved by the Cabinet.
Various news reports indicate that Sri Lanka is discussing whether to obtain the vaccines from the United States, Britain, or Sputnik V vaccine from Russia. However, it is clear that Sri Lanka has entered into world politics of vaccines. Such vaccine politics tells us that we need to steadily continue controlling strategies such as social distancing, contact tracing, antigen, and PCR testing, significantly raising awareness at the micro-community level. The kind of resilience that local people display when a family member undergoes an infectious disease such as measles and mumps are remarkable. People must be reminded of their resilience and caring. The communities must be made aware of the importance of safeguarding against the coronavirus, given its increased politicization and uneven possibilities of immunization and care.
While it is difficult to anticipate an equitable distribution of the vaccines globally, Sri Lanka’s situation will be determined by the number of vaccines received and the pandemic’s increased politicization. The WHO recognizes four categories of vulnerable persons/groups: Persons at risk of more serious illness from COVID-19, persons or groups with social vulnerabilities, persons or groups living in closed settings, and persons or groups with a higher occupational risk of exposure to the virus. What guarantees that these groups will be considered on a priority basis and the process of immunization will not be biased towards economic and political power? The global geographies of vaccines communicate to us two important messages. First are the difficulty and the disadvantaged position of obtaining vaccines for Sri Lanka as a less-developed country, and as a result, the COVID-19 pandemic can be protracted. Until the vaccines are obtained and a sizeable population of, at least, the risk category – including the frontline health care and security personal – are immunized, we will automatically be identified as vulnerable territories in terms of bio-security. Second, this vulnerability can be manipulated politically, both globally and nationally, to negotiate other deals with powerful countries to trade with vaccines.
The possibility of uneven geographies of care is a fact that should be anticipated given that a majority of the infected are from what we call ‘low-income, low-social status’ communities. There is now a tendency to identify COVID-19 as a disease of the impoverished. The local government bodies such as Municipal councils must reevaluate their position, not how they have acted to control the pandemic, but what they have failed to do in addressing the social welfare issues of the urban low-income communities.
As we look at the possible geographies of care, it is evident that the existence of a relatively good hospital network (at national, regional, and local levels) with relatively good coverage of the entire country has been immensely helpful in treating and caring for COVID-19 patients and those suspected. In addition to the already existing hospitals, the government has converted various government institutions into treatment centres in different parts of the island. This provides breathing space for the government hospitals when dealing with COVID-19 patients and patients who need critical medical care for other illnesses. It should also not be forgotten that the Public Health Inspectors were a category of lesser-known among the hierarchy of the health workers. Their role in curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic has been indispensable: Working not under the best of circumstances and with the minimum personal protective equipment. The average labourer who was entrusted with the strenuous task of sanitizing public places must be cared for too.
The public health system operationalized through MOH areas, a total of 347 MOH areas, as per the Annual Health Statistics Report 2017, is an essential component of controlling the pandemic now or in the future. The health sector generally receives only 1.59 percent of the GNP and 5.94 percent of the National Expenditure, a measly share for an essential sector. According to the same Report, Sri Lanka records an acute shortage of health personnel. There is a significant shortage of nurses and doctors: One doctor for 1083 people, one nurse per 471 people, one Public Health Midwife for 3533 people. As we look into the possible geographies of care, the significance of Primary Health Care Units, the MOH-based public health system, in maintaining a healthy country is indisputable.
Micro-geographies of COVID-19
In its interim guidance issued on May 18, 2020, the directive issued by the WHO is as follows: “Physical and social distancing measures in public spaces to prevent transmission between infected individuals and those who are not infected, and shield those at risk of developing serious illnesses. These measures include physical distancing, reduction or cancellation of mass gatherings and avoiding crowded spaces in different settings (e.g., public transport, restaurants, bars, theatres), working from home, and supporting adaptations to workplaces and educational institutions. For physical distancing, WHO recommends a minimum distance of at least one meter between people to limit the risk of interpersonal transmission.” Thus, the WHO recommendation includes two components: physical distancing of one meter between people and social distancing as much as possible in the social events, gatherings, etc.
This requirement was initially communicated as social distancing (සමාජ දුරස්ථභාවය) in Sri Lanka. The exercise of ‘physical and social distancing’ during COVID-19 reminded us of the work of two Political Geographers, Robert E. Norris, and L. Lloyd Haring. They argued that “every person has [is] a portable territory that is larger than the space s/he physically needs” (1980:9). They further wrote that “This territory is called personal space. It is similar in some ways to a political territory. Both personal space and political space are bounded, occupants of each type of space interact with each other of their kin, and uninvited intruders in both types of areas cause stress and behavioural changes within the intruded area.” It is imperative to understand that the personal space or the portable territory is unique to each individual in both size and shape, and they may vary over time and space, according to their specific individual requirements. In such a situation, how can we/how do we regiment this personal space in fear of the uninvited intruder of the coronavirus pathogen, through a standard measure of one or two meters between individuals? Until the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, this space, the portable territory of ours, had been taken for granted. We operated with a sense of relative autonomy over our portable territories. Now, we are told by the state and those in charge of controlling the pandemic how to operate these portable territories, maintaining a distance of one to two meters from each other. It is also expected that every person would carry out this ‘social distancing’ uniformly.
In early years, geographers were influenced by the science of spatial distancing, proxemics, introduced by the Cultural Anthropologist Edward T. Hall, who studied proxemics to understand human spatial behaviour at a micro-scale. In his famous book, “The Hidden Dimension,” published in 1966, he introduced a typology of human spatial distancing. This typology classifies the micro-spatiality of human beings into four types of spaces: intimate space, personal space, social space, and public space. Each type of space is demarcated with a specific distance, internally divided into a near phase and a far phase. The ‘portable territory’ mentioned above includes the intimate and personal spaces in this typology. According to Hall’s generalization, these portable territories end at four feet (1.2 meters), where social space begins. In his typology, ‘social space’ (See Diagram 01) spans between four to twelve feet, which is housed between personal and the public space. Edward T. Hall elaborates that “a proxemic feature of social distance is that it can be used to insulate or screen people from each other” (1966: 123). Social distance thus demarcates the end of physical dominion of an individual or, in other words, literally the jurisdiction of the portable territory.
Diagram 01: Distance Typology
In the case of COVID-19, hypothesizing that every person could be a possible carrier of the pathogen, one must maintain the one-metre distance. The distance of one-meter marks the outer boundary of the personal space and the inner boundary of the social space. An effective way to control the pathogens’ spread is to ensure that one strictly remains within one’s portable territory or, control people’s proxemic behaviour. This is very challenging since human beings have been civilized as social beings with defined and undefined social spaces!
Social distancing has become our new norm, and there is an undeniable need for this restriction. However, proxemic behaviour is not entirely an individual matter of concern. People of different cultures display different proxemic patterns; in other words, proxemic patterns are culturally highly conditioned. The concepts of ‘near’ and ‘distant’ are culturally different and relative. “The specific distance chosen (between two or more individuals) depends on the transaction, the relationship of the interacting individuals, how they feel and what they are doing… (Hall, 1969: 128). Human space requirements are generally influenced by his/her environment and surroundings and cultural norms. It is essential to understand the various elements in the immediate surroundings and the larger social context that contribute to our sense of spaces, distances, and relations. Implementers of social distancing may think that all people in a queue are potential carriers of the coronavirus, and therefore, one must maintain a distance of one meter. But some people may feel uncomfortable with social distancing simply because they may have socialized into different proxemic patterns.
Our proxemic behaviour may change, given the particular circumstances. For example, the need to feed a crying child at home, ailing parents, or one’s family overrides the fear of the virus, and the social distance is often contracted, in fear the person in front may grab what you may need. How people feel about each other at a particular time in a given space is a decisive factor in maintaining distance. In his study, Edward T. Hall explains that when people are angry and frustrated, they unknowingly tend to move closer. Some people often forget or become inconsiderate about maintaining social distance simply because of the urgency that being served in a regular queue entails. On such occasions, people are often characterized and labelled as irrational, undisciplined, and even unruly, whereas in political gatherings, opening ceremonies, personalized ‘bodhi pujas,’ etc., proxemic behaviour is often overlooked.
The standard proxemics required to control the COVID-19 pandemic are not realities for people who live in congested localities such as urban low-income areas and plantation areas where COVID-19 is fast spreading. Public services and commercial activities must be streamlined to facilitate a rational proxemic behaviour to maintain the social distance (see, for example, photograph no.1), with the understanding that the proxemic behaviour is culturally conditioned. It is very self-explanatory. Our discussion on proxemics here is not an argument against the requirement of one-meter restriction or any other form of social distancing. But understanding the cultural nuances of proxemics helps us be sensitive and intelligent when handling difficult situations rather than labelling people as irrational, undisciplined, and uncultured.
Few conclusive thoughts
What we have tried to emphasize in the article is the need and value of contextualizing the COVID-19 pandemic geographically. There are two aspects to this. First, it is imperative that the prevalence of the COVID-19 is mapped at the GN level with the available data focusing on individual MOH divisions. With our ‘sample’ exercise of Kandy, we have shown that a better spatial picture can be derived from GN level mapping. Since the MOH division, among others, is a crucial operational spatial unit for matters of public health, it is essential to map the number of COVID-19 patients at the MOH level, preferably even randomly locating them within GN divisions. The unintended benefit of such mapping would be that the existing health record systems (IMMR/eIMMR, etc.) will be further developed as a spatial health record system. A spatial health record system helps to understand the ecological dynamics of any disease and can be used as a real-time health monitoring and surveillance tool. The existing health record systems contain patients’ identity numbers (bed-head ticket number), age, gender, postal address, etc. If locational information such as GN, DSD, and district can be added, the data can easily be extracted at any spatial unit from the database for analysis in a crisis. Moreover, the postal addresses can be converted to Geographic Coordinates, indicating the patients’ geographical locations, using geocoding techniques.
Second, it is essential to understand the socioeconomic and ecological contexts of areas where the disease spreads at high intensity. Such a task is made difficult because of the unavailability of data relating to socioeconomic contexts at the GN level. However, the existing administrative system and its resources (Divisional Secretaries, Grama NIladharis, etc.) can be utilized to gather information about local areas. The process of controlling the pandemic must be localized with the MOH as the key operational spatial unit while adhering to national health guidelines and ethical concerns. It is time for the MOH-led system to take pro-active measures (i.e., creating awareness), in collaboration with the existing administrative setup, community organizations and networks, to safeguard the areas where the disease has not yet spread. Most importantly, this process needs to be monitored at the district level. Perhaps, district task forces need to be established to assess and take stock of the district’s current situation, preferably at the GN division level, and implement management and preventive measures.
In its recommendations, the WHO has repeatedly emphasized the need to adhere to both public health and social measures and, very importantly, select and ‘calibrate based on their local context.’ The WHO writes very clearly in its ‘COVID-19 Global Risk Communication and Community Engagement Strategy,’ that “COVID-19 is more than a health crisis; it is also an information and socioeconomic crisis.” It highlights the need to be ‘informed by data that cover the community needs, issues, and perceptions’ and engage with the communities. When the pandemic becomes protracted and the vaccines are not within reach, it is crucial to engage with the communities at the lower levels to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The authorities must pay special attention to the areas that it has not yet spread and take pro-active measures to safeguard those areas, perhaps with the assistance of community organizations and institutions to create awareness among communities.
It appears that people are becoming complacent, and this can exacerbate the situation. Generally, people expect the government to control the second wave and are less inclined to take responsibility for individual behaviours and public health and social measures. On the other hand, the government seems to expect the full responsibility to be taken by the individuals. As the pandemic situation is drawn out, people tend to take risks for granted and assumes normalcy. Such complacency can be detrimental to the process of controlling the pandemic. Such complacency is also a result of poor or lack of communication about the disease, specially among vulnerable communities. Although the Ministry of Health has developed a comprehensive set of health guidelines, whether they are effectively communicated to the people is a matter of concern. Many people cannot grasp the severity of the disease and the significance of adhering to preventive health and social measures. Therefore, authorities must seriously consider sharing the responsibility of controlling the pandemic with the communities.
Finally, while we encourage mapping as a tool that can facilitate better decision making, it is important to understand that maps, and even charts and diagrams, etc., can become ‘political technologies.’ Such political technologies can instil a sense of concern, fear, and anxiety among the decision-makers and the public. We see that the pandemic is fast politicized in Sri Lanka. Mapping and geo-visualization of COVID-19 should not be ruled out either in fear of exposure or political manipulation, as it may suggest how the pandemic needs to be acted upon effectively at the local level.
Dr. Nalani Hennayake teaches a range of Human Geography courses) and Dr. Kumudini Kumarihamy teaches GIS and Health at the Department of Geography, University of Peradeniya.
(Concluded)
In a country where the Constitution is supreme, all conduct that is inconsistent with it is invalid. This includes parliamentary legislation, which may be reviewed by the judiciary, potentially resulting in inconsistent provisions being declared invalid. Ideally, other actions of Parliament, such as the conduct of its proceedings and the adoption of resolutions, should also be subject to constitutionality review. Conversely, in countries where parliamentary sovereignty prevails, legislation or processes of Parliament are not open to review.
This article emphasises the importance of permitting judicial review of actions by Parliament and its officials, thereby ensuring the Constitution’s supremacy in practice. It must be emphasised that this also applies to the executive, judiciary, independent institutions, and the citizenry.
Sri Lankan Constitutions
In the Independence (Soulbury) Constitution of Ceylon, although there was no explicit provision conferring upon courts the power to declare legislation invalid, such power was implicitly acknowledged and exercised, as demonstrated in Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe and Liyanage v. The Queen.
Under the Republican Constitution of 1972, the National State Assembly (NSA) was the supreme instrument of state power and possessed unlimited legislative authority, including the power to amend and to replace the Constitution with a two-thirds majority. A Bill inconsistent with a constitutional provision can be passed with a two-thirds majority without amending that provision. All laws that existed when the Constitution came into effect remained valid, notwithstanding any inconsistency with fundamental rights. The Public Security Ordinance, a pre-independence law, was deemed to have been enacted under the Constitution, thereby validating its provisions in relation to the entire Constitution. Legislation can be challenged only at the Bill stage. Section 39 stipulated that the proceedings of the NSA, or anything done, purported to be done, or omitted to be done by the NSA, were immune from judicial review.
The 1978 Constitution declares in the Preamble that it is the Supreme Law of the country. However, several provisions of the Constitution undermine the very concept of its supremacy. Provisions from the 1972 Constitution relating to judicial review, existing laws, passing Bills inconsistent with the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance remain in effect. The President’s unconstitutional acts could not have been challenged until the Nineteenth Amendment allowed fundamental rights applications to be filed.
The prohibition on post-enactment review means that if citizens have not been vigilant in challenging a Bill containing an unconstitutional provision, such a provision cannot be contested once the Bill becomes law. In a developing country like ours, it is irrational to expect citizens to be watchful and scrutinise all Bills published in the Gazette for potential unconstitutional provisions. Many unconstitutional provisions have escaped the attention of even the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the effects of a law are best observed once it is in operation; not all possible effects can be anticipated at the Bill stage. Additionally, citizens would benefit from the evolution of the law if post-enactment review is permitted.
Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act
The 1978 Constitution does not contain a provision similar to section 39 of the 1972 Constitution, stipulating that proceedings of Parliament are immune from judicial review. However, like the 1972 Constitution, Article 67 provides that until Parliament determines its privileges, immunities, and powers by law, the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, 1953, shall apply. Section 3 of the Act states: “There shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceeding in Parliament and such freedom of speech, debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.” Several Speakers of Parliament have interpreted Section 3 to assert complete autonomy for parliamentary decisions and unfettered control over proceedings.
For example, Speakers Anura Bandaranaike and Chamal Rajapaksa took up the position that the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into allegations against a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal was immune from judicial review. Speaker Bandaranaike quoted Erskine May, an acknowledged authority on parliamentary procedure in the United Kingdom: The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin from one maxim, ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere.’
However, in Chandraguptha Thenuwara v. Chamal Rajapaksa, a five-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that such an appointment did not fall within the legislative powers of Parliament. Instead, it amounted to executive or administrative action, challengeable under the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Yet, the issue of the justiciability of other actions of the Speaker and Parliament remains. One must remember that Erskine May was discussing practices in Britain, where the concept of parliamentary sovereignty reigns. Additionally, in the absence of a specific constitutional provision permitting the judiciary to review the constitutionality of actions by the Speaker and Parliament, judicial decisions would be disregarded, as Speakers Bandaranaike and Rajapakse did.
Globally, there have been instances where Members of Parliament have infringed upon the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens under the pretence of exercising their freedom of speech and debate. Citizens have no recourse against such actions. Such instances are significantly fewer in countries with strong political traditions. While effective internal procedures are the best means to ensure that the rights of others are not violated, it is timely to consider alternative procedures and remedies in countries like ours where such violations continue unabated.
Comparative provisions and judgments
It would be useful to examine constitutional provisions and landmark judgments of developing countries where the supremacy of the Constitution is recognised. I chose India, South Africa, Papua New Guinea and Malawi, all members of the Commonwealth.
Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly declare so, its supremacy is evident throughout. Numerous decisions of the Indian Supreme Court support this position. Legislation is subject to post-enactment judicial review, and acts of the Executive can also be reviewed. Articles 122 and 212 provide that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament and a State legislature, respectively, shall not be called in question “on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.” In and Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the immunity granted is limited to ‘irregularity of procedure’ and does not extend to substantive illegality or unconstitutionality.
The Forty-second Amendment, passed during Indira Gandhi’s notorious emergency rule, stipulated that no amendment to the Constitution could be challenged in any court on any grounds. This provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, stating that “Parliament cannot, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features.”
Section 2 of the South African Constitution reads: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”
Economic Freedom Fighters v. Speaker of the National Assembly
concerned a report by the Public Protector regarding allegations of improper conduct or irregular expenditure related to security upgrades at the private residence of President Jacob Zuma. She concluded that the President derived undue benefits and directed him to pay a portion that was reasonably proportionate to the undue benefit. However, based on a report by the Minister of Police, the National Assembly passed a resolution absolving the President of liability. An eleven-member Bench of the Constitutional Court unanimously held that the National Assembly resolution was inconsistent with the Constitution.
In Papua New Guinea, section 11 of the Constitution declares that the Constitution and the Organic Laws are the Supreme Law of Papua New Guinea, and all acts (whether legislative, executive, or judicial) that are inconsistent with them are, to the extent of the inconsistency, invalid and ineffective.
Under section 18, the Supreme Court has an original and exclusive jurisdiction as to any question relating to the interpretation or application of any provision of the Constitution or an Organic Law.
Application by the Honourable James Nomane MP
related to a decision made by the Private Business Committee of Parliament to disallow a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister on the ground that it was brought within twelve months after a similar motion was defeated. Standing Order 165 permitted the Speaker to disallow any motion that is the same in substance as one brought within the previous twelve months. The constitutionality of the decision, as well as of Standing Order 165, was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Court was satisfied that Standing Order 165, which constrains the exercise of the right of a member of Parliament to bring a motion of no confidence, was not reasonably justifiable and therefore unconstitutional. The decision of the Private Business Committee was consequently unconstitutional.
The Speaker was directed to recall Parliament on a date appointed by the Court.
In Reference by Morobe Provincial Executive re Re-election of the Governor-General, the Supreme Court declared that the re-election of a Governor-General by Parliament was unconstitutional and ordered that Parliament be recalled as soon as practicable to remedy deficiencies in the nomination and election of the Governor-General.
Thus, acting under section 18 of the Constitution, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court has declared a Standing Order unconstitutional, reviewed and struck down decisions of parliamentary committees, declared decisions of Parliament unconstitutional and directed the Speaker to convene Parliament. Parliament obeyed the rulings without demur.
Section 5 (Supremacy of this Constitution) of the Constitution of Malawi states: Any act of Government or any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be invalid. Section 108(2) states: “The High Court shall have original jurisdiction to review any law, and any action or decision of the Government, for conformity with this Constitution, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution and shall have such other jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred on it by this Constitution or any other law”.
In Tembo v. Attorney-General, the Malawi High Court held that it had no difficulty in concluding that ‘government’ as used in section 108 includes the three organs of government. When the Speaker or the National Assembly makes a decision within the House that involves interpreting the Constitution or a law, such a decision is subject to review by the judiciary to ensure it complies with the law and the Constitution. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court held similarly in Nseula v. Attorney-General, where a decision of the Speaker that the petitioner’s seat in Parliament had fallen vacant as he had allegedly crossed the floor was challenged.
Establishing constitutional supremacy
Sri Lankans are weary of both persons in authority and institutions running roughshod over the law. The Aragalaya’s demand for “system change” exemplified the popular sentiment, which was followed by an electoral mandate for a radical transformation. The promised Constitution must therefore be a transformative constitution that reflects the people’s wishes. Regarding actions of the legislature, this would mean a constitution under which all actions of Parliament, whether legislative or otherwise, are subject to review by the judiciary for constitutionality.
BY (Dr) Jayampathy Wickramaratne, President’s Counsel ✍️
General Hamilton Wanasinghe (Retd) VSV, USP, ndc:
The military funeral of General Hamilton Wanasinghe was held at Borella last Saturday.
A legendary military leader of our time, he served Sri Lanka for more than 41 years (1954-1995) in various capacities such as the Commander of the Army, Commander Joint Operations Command (presently known as Chief of Defence Staff) and Secretary of Defence.
More than 1,700 troops lined up at Bauddhaloka Mawatha by 1630 hrs, representing the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, followed by the members of The Ex-Servicemen’s Association, where General Wanasinghe was President for a number of years. His contribution towards having a pension scheme introduced for Volunteer Units of Military is always remembered with gratitude.
The casket carrying remains of the General was placed on the Gun Carriage with six pallbearers on either side of it led by General’s own son, Major General Sanjaya Wanasinghe (retired), who rose to position of Chief of Staff of Army, following the footsteps of his illustrious father. General Srilal Weerasooriya (retired) – an Artillery Crops officer like General Wanasinghe, former Army Commanders General Daya Rathnayake, General Mahesh Senananayake, General Chrishantha de Silva, General Shavindra Silva were present.
Guns of the General’s own unit, 4th Battalion of Artillery Regiment, boomed against overcast skies. “Minute guns” (one gun shot in every passing minute) indicated that the funeral procession was progressing towards the crematorium.
Opening of General Hamilton Wanasinghe Mawatha
Army units at the funeral were led by the Artillery Regiment, followed by other regiments, including two units raised by General Wanasinghe himself as the Army Commander – Corps of Military Intelligence, which was placed under the late General Lionel Ballagalle, another Anandian, Artillery officer who was a Colonel at the time and the Special Forces, with Major General Gamini Hettiarachchi as its head in 1988. General Wanasinghe’s visionary thinking was aptly demonstrated during the fight against the LTTE when these two units worked in unison to bring LTTE to their knees by targeting their military leadership in greatly successful “behind-the-enemy-lines” operations.
Once the Casket was removed from the Gun Carriage podium by six regimental Sergeants Major of the Artillery Corps, of same height, smartly dressed in ceremonial uniform, the Commander of the Army’s Special Part 1 orders were read by Major General KVNP Premaratne, RSP, USP, nps the Adjutant General of the Sri Lanka Army.
With the drill “Parade Presenting Arms” the artillery guns from General’s own unit fired 17 gun-salutes with exactly five-second intervals. Witnessing this respectful and solemn funeral parade were senior politicians, Karu Jayasuriya and Nimal Siripala de Silva. Major General Aruna Jayasekara (retired) Deputy Defence Minister, Attorney General Parinda Ranasinghe Jr, retired Secretaries of Defence, Chiefs of Defence Staff, Service Commanders like General Gerry Silva, General Shantha Kottegoda, General Jagath Jayasooriya, Admiral Daya Sadagiri, General Kamal Gunaratne, Admiral Priyantha Perera and Air Chief Marshal Udeni Rajapaksa.
General Wanasinghe lost three of his close relatives- two nephews (Major Panduka Wanasinghe and Captain Nalin Jayathilake) and his son-in-law, Brigadier Bathiya Jayathilake, during the country’s 30-year-long conflict. I always remember that when I talked to him about Bathiya, who was his aide when he was Commander and Secretary Defence, he used to say, “I lost my right hand.” He never prevented them from going to the battlefield simply because he was the Commander. What a great man!
General Wanasinghe was extremely fortunate to commission and present the commissioning sword to his own son Sanjaya. It was the first time in Sri Lanka’s military history an Army Commander commissioned his own son into the Army.
I can vividly remember that General Wanasinghe and his wife were extremely happy and proud on that day. Mrs Ira Wanasinghe ( née Jayathilake) married young Army officer Hamilton in 1960. They had five children (three daughters and two sons). Sadly, she passed away a few years ago.
Another close relative of General Wanasinghe had a narrow escape on the battlefield; he was critically injured. He was Major Atula Jayawardena from the Artillery Battalion. The incident occurred in 1985 on the Mannar – Medawachchiya Road due to multiple land mines blasts. Athula and his driver were extremely lucky, surviving with injuries, where five others in his vehicle died. I was in a vehicle behind him and it fell into the crater created by the blast. Those were the dangerous days on Mannar- Medawachchiya road! Athula rose to the rank of Major General before retiring.
When I was a school cadet at Royal College in 1978, I visited the Army Hospital with Bathiya and another friend, our Cadet Sergeant Naeem Mahamoor, to see then Colonel Hamilton Wanasinghe, who was injured due to an accident at the firing range. It was the first time I met him. He was extremely happy to see us youngsters and narrated stories of his school time as a Cadet and happy days at the Diyatalawa School Cadet camps. He was a Sergeant Major in 3rd Battalion of the Ceylon Cadet Corps in the early 1950s at Ananda College, Colombo and was an excellent marksman who represented Ceylon in Inter- Dominion Small Bore Rifle Shooting Competitions. He joined the Ceylon Army in 1954 as an Officer Cadet and was sent to the Royal Military Academy (RMA), Sandhurst in the UK for training. After successfully completing the training programme, he joined the Ceylon Army Artillery Corps.
General Wanasinghe’s love for firearms and knowledge of them encouraged him to introduce Sniper firing training to the Army and established a Sniper firing training school at Diyatalawa when he was the Commander of the Army. Later, his son Sanjaya became the Commandant of Marksmanship and Sniper Training School (MSTS).
Some of the best snipers of the Sri Lanka Navy, especially of the Special Boats Squadron were trained by Sanjaya. Thanks Sanjaya for your great work. Your beloved father was extremely proud of you.
General Wanasinghe, on his retirement, moved to his village, Malwana. While I was the Navy Commander, he used to call me whenever the Kelani river overflowed, causing floods. He always talked on behalf of the villagers who were affected and marooned by floods. He was very concerned about their welfare. One of his happiest moments was when the main road between Dompe and Malwana was named after him on 24 August 2019.
I met General Wanasinghe as the founding Commanding Officer of Special Boats Squadron ( SBS) – the Naval Commando Unit in December 1993, when he was the Secretary Defence. It was after the Pooneryn amphibious landing by SBS assist the besieged Army camp there.
I met him with a request letter from the then Commander of the Navy (Admiral DSMR Samarasekara) requesting for approval for paying “Commando Allowance ” to SBS personnel also. He listened to me and said: “Ravi, we require such a unit to fight the LTTE Sea Tigers. Develop it into a formidable unit. My blessings are with you.” He approved the request.
Thanks to his vision, the SBS played a pivotal role in sea battles with the enemy in lagoons and in littoral seas to free the country from the clutches of terrorism.
May he attain the supreme bliss of Nirvana!
(Admiral Wijegunaratne WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
is former Navy Commander and former Chief of Defence Staff, former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd, former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and former Lankan High Commissioner to Pakistan)
Vraie Cally Balthazaar is the newly elected Mayor of Colombo. On June 16, almost a fortnight after MC elections were held, she was voted in by secret ballot as Mayor, winning 61 votes against the main opposition candidate Riza Zarook from the coalition of a mixed bag of Parties, who got 54 votes. Cass would add to the epithet ‘mixed’ – unholy and most unlikely of parties including the SJB, UNP and even the SLPP, banding themselves together to defeat the NPP. And once they were defeated, bringing in all sorts of allegations, against of all things – the secret ballot method of voting decided on. Sajith Premadasa who voiced the combined opposition’s protest is fast losing his clout and the little popularity he has, even in his party, as voiced by others.
Cassandra has seen her in many photographs and video clips and found her to be charming, lovely, and beneath those good looks, solid and committed. She emerged as a people’s champion and leader, hence Cass’ total approval of her. Cass is certain she will be a good Mayor concerned about the people of Colombo.
Born in 1985, educated at Methodist College, Colombo, and holding a degree in fashion design and postgraduate diploma in Gender and Women’s Studies, Vraie is higher educated, and promises to be totally competent to be Mayor of the Colombo Municipal Council. She has experience in media and was an activist for the good of the country and people’s rights. She was a TV presenter and active in civil society and research; also worked with NGOs on women’s and children’s issues.
Most significantly, a write-up about her states that she researched urban development and city planning with special relevance to low income communities in Colombo. “Her activism extended to gender equality and labour rights, aligning with her academic focus combined with media presence and grassroots work, helped shape her public identity as a feminist and community advocate.”
Invariably mentioned in present bios is the fact she is the second woman to serve as Mayor of Colombo. Less said and better thrust to the back is the first woman mayor of Colombo. Cass’ tongue is reluctant to name the name of that first mayor and her wrist reluctant to write it. What is she associated with that makes her repugnant, that ex-Mrs World of great beauty and charm?
Her self-serving nature, her alleged misdemeanors while mayor, refurbishing lavishly the mayoral residence and the inevitable association of her name with grandiose toilets! Out from being mayor, she got another plum sinecure: one of the very many advisors to Prez Ranil Wickremasinghe who took no advice, with the bequethment by pranksters of SL with a baila ditty: Rosyge veyo kaapu Porsche eka.
So, let’s not bracket Ms Balthazaar with Rosy Senanayake.
Gloom and doom
Is the world enshrouded in a gloom atmosphere forecasting trouble? Two parts of it are: not only in gloom but smoke, destruction and death. The situation in the Israel dominating mid-East and eastern Europe of Ukraine are worsening as of today – Wednesday 18 June. The Great Man of the World, as he believes he is, is not helping at all. He is aligned with Israel and considers Putin a friend. Three bloodthirsty dictators are keeping the world on edge: Netanyahu, Putin and Trump the accessory.
What about Sri Lanka? Thankfully peaceful with people being considered important and corruption detected, exposed and hopefully eradicated, or at least reduced. President Dissanayake’s talk to Sri Lankans living over there during his official visit to Germany was an eye opener. He spoke very strong about racism being encouraged by certain persons and parties to destabilize the government and the country. Was it a cry of wolf? Certainly not since the President is not given to unjustified fears and claims. Cunning foxes’ barks and howls emanate from the political periphery. For the first time in our history votes were cast by Tamils for Sinhalese NPP election candidates. There is considerable unity among the races. One example: Kandy Muslim religious heads opened their mosques for overflowing crowds who gathered in Kandy to venerate the Sacred Relic.
As Cassandra’s title indicated, there are bright spots in the gloom. One such she wishes to highlight, a YouTube video of which she watched recently, with mounting appreciation and hope for mankind and thus the world.
Great sportsman Nadal felicitated
At the very start of the French Open tennis tournament, also named Roland-Garros, Rafael Nadal was honoured with a felicitation ceremony at Court Philippe-Chatrier, on May 25. He had won 14 French titles, hence the honour.
A visibly moved Nadal who actually shed tears was conducted to the court by the two top officials of the tennis association, then his relatives were invited to line up opposite him, court persons from ball picker to umpires. He was presented with a plaque. The highlight of the ceremony, at least to Cass, was him being joined by the three greats he competed with and beat or lost to: Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. Later the earth was swept away on the side of the court beside the net revelaing a footprint of Nadal’s. “It will be here forever,” announced the commentator.
Rafael Nadal Parera, born June 3, 1986, was from a well-to-do family. He holds many sports records but one to be mentioned is that he was ranked as World No 1 in men’s singles by the Association of Tennis Professionals for 209 weeks and holds 22 major titles as well as Masters titles and an Olympic gold medal. His 81 consecutive wins on clay constitute the longest single-surface win streak in the Open Era.
What’s more interesting to Cass is that he married a childhood friend from Mallorca, the largest island in Spain’s Balearic Islands, which was home to both. After 14 years of dating he married Mery ‘Xisxa’ Perello in October 2019. In 2022 they had their first child, a son, and they are expecting a second soon. They avoid publicity and photographers. “I’m already exposed enough in my professional life. My loved ones and I like to live with a low profile.” But at the felicitation, he carried his son around for a little. He retired from professional tennis after playing for Spain in the Davis cup, 2024.
Watching from the stands at the felicitation, dressed in the maroon T-Shirt that most wore with Nadal’s name on it, was Carlos Alcaraz, co-Spaniard and this year’s French Open winner, second year running.
Why did Cass consider this felicitation a bright spot in the gloom of the world? It showed there was much more in our world than wars, greed, enmity, commercialism. Here was a manifestation of gratitude to a great sportsman. Here were tennis and sports celebrated; skills and endeavour high-lighted; a sincere display of camaraderie and sportsmanship and healthy competition plus friendship.
Shanto, Shadman stretch Bangladesh’s lead after Nayeem’s five-for
Akesha, Dinara guide Sri Lanka to Billie Jean King Cup Asia Oceania Group III victory
Air India says one engine on crashed plane was new
-
Features6 days agoAs I remember, from 50 years ago: the 75-80 Katubedda Engineering Batch
-
Features6 days agoWriting History on Paris Clay – French Open 2025
-
Life style6 days agoMiss World from Thailand!
-
Features5 days agoWhen the water rises: Climate change and the future of Yala’s Mugger Crocodiles
-
Editorial7 days agoSugar Scam: Get at bitter truth
-
News1 day agoMinistry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism, accelerates digital transformation
-
News3 days agoSenior SLAS officer succeeds Bogollagama as SL’s UK HC
-
Business2 days agoSpring board to ‘unleashing a new era in start-up driven growth’